Made a very large bet that Darnold would not be great. I hope he is right. Even if Barkley is everything we hope he can be, if Darnold is great it will have been the wrong pick.
It's arguments liek this that make no sense to me.
No consideration as to how successful or not the teams they are on are. It's like winning doesn't even matter let alone Super Bowls.
Made a very large bet that Darnold would not be great. I hope he is right. Even if Barkley is everything we hope he can be, if Darnold is great it will have been the wrong pick.
Webb looking horrific thursday night is concerning as well. DG made bets on Eli, Webb, and Darnold not being great. His tenure as Giants GM rides on those 3 bets
Again, with this crap. He played well against the 2nd team defense Webb did not. It was one game. He may have had some jitters shit happens. How do you know Darnold was the next QB on his board? Barkley is
The player we have I could care less now Darnold, our goal is to win now with Barkley. You have complained now for months now about this selection. All of you including the person who started this thread all sound like the people who did not get their candidate to win and are hoping that candidate fails now so you can say see I was right. I really hope Barkley makes you all eat crow so we can stop with all this revisionist shit every time Darnold plays. The what if’s threads are already unbearable.
I didn't even enjoy the pick at #2 because I was pissed we didn't take Darnold. But then I realized QBs are a crap shoot and Barkley is supposed to be a slam dunk. We can shoot the craps against in a year or two. That said even if I didn't change my thinking I'd like to think I wouldn't whine nonstop about it and would just root for Barkley to succeed.
AMEN! Best post on this. They all want to say I told you so.
Here do not want to accept the premise that Darnold s performance at the end of the day must be factored into evaluating the wisdom of passing on him for a RB
Prior to the draft, we heard the qb s were flawed. Now we re hearing it doesn't matter how they play.
Barkley could be a great player, still does equate to the impact of a franchise quarterback, if indeed that is what Darnold becomes.
The don t take a quarterback crowd are hedging their bets.
Yeah, we can start to have a realistic discussion on that in about 3-5 years. Not Day 2 after preseason game number 1.
Nobody is hedging their bets after a single preseason game, trust me. Nothing changed anybody's opinion yet. If anything, the opening snap further entrenched the don't take a QB crowd in their take, even validated it.
There are literally people here trying to dissect Barkley's 4 carries in a preaseason game, and coming to the conclusion somehow that it is a negative rather than a positive that he took the opening snap 40 yards from our own twelve yard line. Madness.
The truth is, the don't take a QB crowd has been ecstatic, and continue to be, while the "take a QB at all costs crowd" has not been able to come to grips with what happened since the night of the draft.
I absolutely think Barkley will be great. Unless the Giants by some miracle win a Super Bowl because of him, if Darnold is a great franchise quarterback Barkley could be the best RB in the last decade and it still would have been the wrong pick.
I could make an argument that if Barkley is great and Darnold is just a good qb that it was the wrong pick.
I dont think anyone denies that Barkley was the safest pick. He's the one most likely to fulfill his potential. Problem is the ceiling value for a RB is no where near the ceiling value for a QB.
I very much fear 8-10 year stretch of horrific QB play after Simms was gone. I'm skeptical of Eli being able to turn the clock back, and even if he does no one behind him gives me any type of hope that we have our next QB already on the roster.
This is a QB driven league. We've been blessed to have one for the last 15 years, but his time is coming to an end much faster than any of us would like.
are nowhere to be found when their opinions, which they like to assert as facts, don’t play out. Let others have a say, if it’s that stupid then go do something else instead feeling the need to belittle them.
It’s simple, QB’s are hard to come by and have much more effect on a roster and also a much longer shelf life. Barkley will be great, no doubt, but it would have been a mistake if any of the other three QBs turn out to be franchise QBs.
I am on the fence with Eli, prob not a basher but definitely not a homer. He has to play well during the next two years too for this pick to make sense.
RE: RE: What if Darnold is great, Barkley is great, and he drafts another QB Â
are nowhere to be found when their opinions, which they like to assert as facts, don’t play out. Let others have a say, if it’s that stupid then go do something else instead feeling the need to belittle them.
It’s simple, QB’s are hard to come by and have much more effect on a roster and also a much longer shelf life. Barkley will be great, no doubt, but it would have been a mistake if any of the other three QBs turn out to be franchise QBs.
I am on the fence with Eli, prob not a basher but definitely not a homer. He has to play well during the next two years too for this pick to make sense.
like so many other posts, once again wins and playoffs are not even mentioned. It’s like people forget what the object of the game is.
If Barkley truly is a HoFer then we currently have *3* Hofers on the roster. There’s wins and playoffs in there. Why is that irrelevant as opposed to having a franchise QB, a few years down the road. Especially, as we were heading wth no runnng game and a pretty qb . but no wins?
I could make an argument that if Barkley is great and Darnold is just a good qb that it was the wrong pick.
No you can't.
Barkley becomes the wrong pick if the Giants fail when Eli moves on and Barkley cannot help them be any better.
It isn't even tied to Darnold - it is tied to Eli's successor and whether or not getting Barkley this year kept us from a better QB.
What if Darnold becomes "good" like Andy Dalton. That would make Barkley the "wrong pick"?
Bullshit.
I think you even said that if Barkley and Darnold both are HoF'ers that it was the wrong pick. Complete bullshit!
A HOF QB and a hall of fame RB do not have even close to the same value to a team.
Let's say he's Ladanian Tomlinson and Darnold is Ben Roethlisberger.
This team isn't going anywhere unless Eli turns the clock back or they find a QB. Regardless of how good Barkley is. Let's just hope DG is right. He went the safe route, we'll see if he made the right decision over the next few years.
the Giants won the Super Bowl, they were one of, if not the worst, rushing team in the league statistically during the regular season.
They ran the ball better in the playoffs, still not great but decent enough.
It's much easier to build a team that can contend for Super Bowls when you have a franchise QB. I'm not sure Eli is that player anymore.
The value of a hall of fame quarterback compared to the value of a hall of fame running back isn't even close. There's a reason decent QB's get paid on the same level that a top RB does.
I have no doubt Barkley will be great if he stays healthy, but I dont think it will matter unless the Giants find a long term answer at QB.
I could make an argument that if Barkley is great and Darnold is just a good qb that it was the wrong pick.
No you can't.
Barkley becomes the wrong pick if the Giants fail when Eli moves on and Barkley cannot help them be any better.
It isn't even tied to Darnold - it is tied to Eli's successor and whether or not getting Barkley this year kept us from a better QB.
What if Darnold becomes "good" like Andy Dalton. That would make Barkley the "wrong pick"?
Bullshit.
I think you even said that if Barkley and Darnold both are HoF'ers that it was the wrong pick. Complete bullshit!
A HOF QB and a hall of fame RB do not have even close to the same value to a team.
Let's say he's Ladanian Tomlinson and Darnold is Ben Roethlisberger.
This team isn't going anywhere unless Eli turns the clock back or they find a QB. Regardless of how good Barkley is. Let's just hope DG is right. He went the safe route, we'll see if he made the right decision over the next few years.
This is such a simplistic view. Of course a HOF QB is more valuable. But the Giants obviously feel that Barkley has a greater chance to be that player than Darnold does. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
And this idea that all Darnold has to be is “good”, for the pick to be bad is even more ludicrous. “Good” QBs can be found anywhere. Why would using the 2nd overall pick on a good QB be considered a success while a HOF RB would be a bad pick? The ONLY way to look back on this from Darnolds perspective and regret the pick is if he turns out great and Barkley doesn’t. Otherwise, contrary to popular belief, Darnold, Allen and Rosen aren’t the last QBs that will ever walk the earth. Especially if your standards for excellence is simply “good”.
If Barkley is a HOF player, it's not going to matter if the Giants don't have a franchise quarterback.
If you guaranteed DG before the draft that Darnold would be a HOF player and Barkley would be a HOF player, do you think he's even considering taking Barkley with the Giants current roster?
What has Adrian Peterson won?
I want the Giants to win Super Bowls. Thats it. I dont see it happening without a franchise QB.
most certainly can't be found anywhere. If that were the case, then why have multiple franchises gone years, some decades, without having even 1 good QB.
If Barkley is a HOF player, it's not going to matter if the Giants don't have a franchise quarterback.
If you guaranteed DG before the draft that Darnold would be a HOF player and Barkley would be a HOF player, do you think he's even considering taking Barkley with the Giants current roster?
What has Adrian Peterson won?
I want the Giants to win Super Bowls. Thats it. I dont see it happening without a franchise QB.
drafting a hall of fame quarterback does not guarantee you a superbowl, so i dont undersrand your point...
darnold and barkley as singular picks do not make their teams super bowl contenders...
if Darnold is good and Barkley is great it is still the wrong pick. No mention of winning or losing - just good vs. great.
Fucking asinine.
Dalton is the definition of a good QB. Not great. Not terrible. Good. Kirk Cousins is a good QB. Not great.
And yet none of it really matters. If you get a great player in a draft, it is a good pick. And the main point that matters more is who replaces Eli. Perhaps it is a draftee in our slot. Perhaps it is a veteran signee. Perhaps it is a draftee we trade up for.
We don't know.
That will be far more important to this debate than the relative strength of Darnold vs. Barkley.
Too many people gloss over this and it leads to terrible takes like a good player is a better pick than a great player or that a HoF players isn't the right pick
If Barkley is a HOF player, it's not going to matter if the Giants don't have a franchise quarterback.
If you guaranteed DG before the draft that Darnold would be a HOF player and Barkley would be a HOF player, do you think he's even considering taking Barkley with the Giants current roster?
What has Adrian Peterson won?
I want the Giants to win Super Bowls. Thats it. I dont see it happening without a franchise QB.
Again, like I already stated in my earlier post, it’s blatantly obvious that Gettleman DIDNT view Darnold as a HOFer. Otherwise yes, he would have been the pick. So again, why is this so hard to grasp?
He never even played in a Super Bowl, never mind won one.
When judging a player at the end of his career it's not Super Bowl or bust, but when building a team, that is what your goal should be.
It's hard to find a path to winning a Super Bowl unless you have a franchise QB. Not impossible, but very, very hard.
DG clearly didn't love any of the QB's. His giants tenure rides on finding a long term answer at QB, if he doesn't he will lose his job as a result in a few years.
top pick QBs used to sit for atleast a year, the learning curve was immense. Now rookies are coming in and having immense success because the game is drastically different. It’s absolutely easier to find a QB now.
And I’m not saying that their value is equal to an RB, it clearly isn’t. But I’ll gladly take the all purpose RB if we aren’t convinced the QB options were worth it. And the goal isn’t to find a “good” QB. If you have one you are generally going to be a mediocre and non threatening team.
and Flacco are not HOF qb's, but they are good to very good players.
Foles is the outlier. Magic carpet ride, flukey type run. But they arent ever in that position if they dont have Carson Wentz. Wentz got them homefield advantage throughout and a bye. Then Foles played two insane games in the NFC Title game and Super Bowl. He was horrible in the first playoff game.
BigBlueShock, I completely agree that DG didn't view Darnold as that kind of player. We will see if he is right or not. Even if Barkley is a smashing success, if the Giants don't find a QB in the next couple years for the long term, that will likely cost DG his job at some point.
I would love nothing more than Eli to turn the clock back and Webb to turn into a franchise level QB. I just don't think it's going to happen. I fear a 1992-1999 type of stretch for the Giants coming up.
never won anything because he rarely ever had a competent quarterback
I think we would all do hand springs if Barkley has the career that AP had.
Unfortunately the second a running back comes into the league his prime starts. His best years start immediately. If the Giants take 5 years to find an answer at QB, they will likely have wasted Barkley's prime years. A lot rides on Eli turning the clock back for a couple of seasons. I don't think it's out of the question for him to do that, I just worry that the last few seasons have taken their toll on him and he's also what, 37?
Barkley should be great if he stays healthy, just not sure any of it will matter if Eli continues to suck or they can't find a good QB in the next 3 years.
You are completely missing the point, though it’s not surprising. The question isn’t can you start a thread day after day bitching about not taking a QB. The question is, why the hell would you want to? It’s over. They didn’t take one. At what point do we move on and focus on this team and what we have to do from this point forward?
We all know the answer. The QB at all costs crowd want to be right. They want to say “I told you so”. They want to believe that they are the smartest guys in the room. In most cases, their parents basements. Guys like you will deny it all day long, but it is incredibly obvious that you’d rather see Darnold succeed and Barkley fail because it’s more gratifying for you to be right than it is for the Giants to succeed. You don’t appear to ebe enjoying any of this. You wanted a QB and it’s more important for your weird ass ego that we regret the move than it is to actually support the team on the field.
Don’t bother denying it. We all know you will claim it’s bullshit. But you and all the other QB at all costs guys are proving the point on a daily basis. Many times, multiple times a day. Good luck in your endeavor
I don't know how old you are but that's a pretty immature post.
You open with a needless insult and then include a tired "living in your parents basement" burn and I'm supposed to take you seriously?
I don't for one minute think that if the Giants had decided to go with a QB @ 2, that the BBIers who wanted Barkley or some other non-QB would be rooting against the team because the Giants didn't take their guy. It's an idiotic narrative. We are ALL Giants fans and we ALL want them to succeed.
Posters will return to claim that they were right, there's no denying that. But nobody is rooting against them just so they can run to BBI and "win" a debate.
as often as possible. To that end, a HOF-type QB isn't going to be the only piece that achieves that goal, nor does having a HOF-type RB.
However, between the two, I think its fairly easy to understand that a HOF-type QB contributes more to the overall equation of reaching that goal versus a HOF-type RB.
Time is the only thing that will tell us if Gettleman's view of reaching that goal was sound...
russell wilson, nick foles, joe flacco 3 qbs who have won superbowls recently and none are great qbs...
Russell Wilson isn’t a great QB?
wilson is a good player who makes a lot happen with his legs but i dont think he is a great quarterback at all
Struggle immensely with the view of not characterizing Wilson as a great QB with his immense level of talent, production and wins. Not to say anything of the fact he has never missed a start in his career...
he hasn’t won shit either. Andrew Luck hasn’t won shit. Cam came close but hasn’t won either. On and on and on.
See how stupid the titles argument is?
Competing for titles consistently is damn near impossible without a franchise QB.
When Andrew Luck went down, the Colts went from being in the AFC title game to being one of the worst teams in the entire sport.
The idea is to build a team that can compete for super bowls consistently. It takes a lot of things coming together to win even one.
Fatman, again, the last time the Giants won the Super Bowl they had the worst running game in the league during the regular season. The offensive line point is a good one, you need a serviceable line to compete. A solid running game is the least important component to building a team to compete for titles. It's not all that hard to put together a running back corps that can help you win a title. Look at the Eagles. Undrafted rookie free agent, Blount who they signed in the off-season on a team friendly deal because he was not highly sought after, traded for Ajayi mid season who the Dolphins didn't want anymore. They literally put their entire backfield together in the matter of a few months.
Tomlinson and Peterson are by far the two best running backs of the last decade. Neither one even played in a Super Bowl. Total I think they only played in 15 playoff games combined.
Barkley can stand on his head every game for the next 5 years but it's not going to matter if the guy under center plays like shit.
How any of you are comfortable with the quarterback position right now is beyond me. They have no chance to even sniff competing for a title if that position isn't figured out.
It's not Super Bowl or bust, but when you're building a team that has to be your goal, putting a team together that can compete for Super Bowls.
DG made large bets on Eli and Webb. He also made a large bet that the QB's he passed on would not be franchise quarterbacks.
I hope he is right. I'm not all that confident that he will be, but I'll root every sunday for him to be right. We all want the same thing here, but some of you refuse to question DG for not taking a QB.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
I hope he is right. I'm not all that confident that he will be, but I'll root every sunday for him to be right. We all want the same thing here, but some of you refuse to question DG for not taking a QB.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
That's why it is asinine to say that a good Darnold will make a great Barkley a wrong pick. Even in your examples, "good" QB's aren't winning consistently, franchise QB's are.
I'm not questioning DG for picking Barkley if he turns out great. And again the point that is eluding you is that it isn't picking Darnold or bust.
It is picking Darnold, or drafting a 1st rounder two years from now, or getting a vet pickup like the Redskins did, or having a mid to late-round pick develop. Darnold is just one of many possible ways to get the next QB.
And the larger point is that this discussion really should be tabled until Eli isn't here and the next guy is because until then, it isn't about Darnold vs. Barkley. It is about the next QB vs. Darnold - if Darnold is even still around then.
The decision to use the #2 overall pick as an investment in Eli's successor or not was a franchise altering decision. The decision not to take a QB was controversial --right or wrong. There were a lot of strong statements made, such as there being no franchise QBs in this draft. We will see. But this debate is going to fade away anytime soon, and the fact that the most likely QB prospect will start his career in NY is going to keep this front and center for a long time. Better get used to it.
Unfortunately, this topic seems to have become too polarizing to allow for much in the way of meaningful conversation.
Why does the QB crowd always have to spin things to fit their narrative that don’t exist? It’s been a constant theme around here. Who the hell hasn’t questioned the decision to not take a QB? I wanted a QB too! That’s not the issue here. The issue is how long and how often are you guys going to continue to complain about it? Your constant bitching isn’t changing a damn thing. So there are two choices here. One is to use up an enormous amount of energy and aggravation by continually posting the same bitchfests day after day after day. The second is to just accept the fact that they took Barkley and start focusing on how to make this team that is actually here, better.
I for one will never understand why people would want to go the first option. Are you really going to piss and moan for the next decade? What’s the end game? You get to say “I told you so!”? We get it. You thought Gettleman should have thrown a dart and just picked a QB, regardless of their evaluations, simply because you wanted a QB. At what point do we move on? It’s not our fault he didn’t take a QB but we are the ones that have to live with it. Twice over. First on the field and secondly on these incessant posts. Lucky us!
The decision to use the #2 overall pick as an investment in Eli's successor or not was a franchise altering decision. The decision not to take a QB was controversial --right or wrong. There were a lot of strong statements made, such as there being no franchise QBs in this draft. We will see. But this debate is going to fade away anytime soon, and the fact that the most likely QB prospect will start his career in NY is going to keep this front and center for a long time. Better get used to it.
Unfortunately, this topic seems to have become too polarizing to allow for much in the way of meaningful conversation.
Good post. Darnold proves the Giants wrong or not. SB proves the Giants wrong or not. Regardless, the only meaningful conversation that would resonate with me is how they look after the season plays out and beyond
If Darnold becomes a franchise QB for the Jets that does not necessarily mean DG made a bad pick. But DG does still need to address the QB position. Right now the team has investments of a 3rd round and 4th round pick in the position. Those are not throw away late picks. If those guys don't pan out, they are going to have to make further investments. Teams can find themselves chasing that allusive player for years. That's why most teams take the shot whey they have their chance -because good chances don't come often unless you are very bad for years and you can blow a hell of a lot of resources if you have a legitimate answer. That's QB hell. I sure as hell hope that is not where we are headed.
I hope he is right. I'm not all that confident that he will be, but I'll root every sunday for him to be right. We all want the same thing here, but some of you refuse to question DG for not taking a QB.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
That's why it is asinine to say that a good Darnold will make a great Barkley a wrong pick. Even in your examples, "good" QB's aren't winning consistently, franchise QB's are.
I'm not questioning DG for picking Barkley if he turns out great. And again the point that is eluding you is that it isn't picking Darnold or bust.
It is picking Darnold, or drafting a 1st rounder two years from now, or getting a vet pickup like the Redskins did, or having a mid to late-round pick develop. Darnold is just one of many possible ways to get the next QB.
And the larger point is that this discussion really should be tabled until Eli isn't here and the next guy is because until then, it isn't about Darnold vs. Barkley. It is about the next QB vs. Darnold - if Darnold is even still around then.
Your last point is the most important, in my opinion.
RE: RE: There is legitimate discussion to be had Â
The decision to use the #2 overall pick as an investment in Eli's successor or not was a franchise altering decision. The decision not to take a QB was controversial --right or wrong. There were a lot of strong statements made, such as there being no franchise QBs in this draft. We will see. But this debate is going to fade away anytime soon, and the fact that the most likely QB prospect will start his career in NY is going to keep this front and center for a long time. Better get used to it.
Unfortunately, this topic seems to have become too polarizing to allow for much in the way of meaningful conversation.
Good post. Darnold proves the Giants wrong or not. SB proves the Giants wrong or not. Regardless, the only meaningful conversation that would resonate with me is how they look after the season plays out and beyond
That's the right way to look at it. You've always had the right perspective on these things '56. We won't know anything for years. I would suggest that the odds of them having blown the pick are very low. Even those in favor of a QB have to acknowledge that Barkley has the look of being a very good player. That at least should be reassuring to any Giants fan.
I hope he is right. I'm not all that confident that he will be, but I'll root every sunday for him to be right. We all want the same thing here, but some of you refuse to question DG for not taking a QB.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
That's why it is asinine to say that a good Darnold will make a great Barkley a wrong pick. Even in your examples, "good" QB's aren't winning consistently, franchise QB's are.
I'm not questioning DG for picking Barkley if he turns out great. And again the point that is eluding you is that it isn't picking Darnold or bust.
It is picking Darnold, or drafting a 1st rounder two years from now, or getting a vet pickup like the Redskins did, or having a mid to late-round pick develop. Darnold is just one of many possible ways to get the next QB.
And the larger point is that this discussion really should be tabled until Eli isn't here and the next guy is because until then, it isn't about Darnold vs. Barkley. It is about the next QB vs. Darnold - if Darnold is even still around then.
But the timing was perfect now. New coach, new GM, new offense, #2 pick in a stacked QB draft, a potential out in Eli's contract, and the opportunity to free up a lot of cap space for Beckham's impending deal. A lot of things had to align, and they did. In terms of moving from one franchise QB to the next (one of the hardest managerial feats to execute in sports) it didn't get any cleaner than that.
It's arguments liek this that make no sense to me.
No consideration as to how successful or not the teams they are on are. It's like winning doesn't even matter let alone Super Bowls.
Webb looking horrific thursday night is concerning as well. DG made bets on Eli, Webb, and Darnold not being great. His tenure as Giants GM rides on those 3 bets
Again, with this crap. He played well against the 2nd team defense Webb did not. It was one game. He may have had some jitters shit happens. How do you know Darnold was the next QB on his board? Barkley is
The player we have I could care less now Darnold, our goal is to win now with Barkley. You have complained now for months now about this selection. All of you including the person who started this thread all sound like the people who did not get their candidate to win and are hoping that candidate fails now so you can say see I was right. I really hope Barkley makes you all eat crow so we can stop with all this revisionist shit every time Darnold plays. The what if’s threads are already unbearable.
AMEN! Best post on this. They all want to say I told you so.
Quote:
Here do not want to accept the premise that Darnold s performance at the end of the day must be factored into evaluating the wisdom of passing on him for a RB
Prior to the draft, we heard the qb s were flawed. Now we re hearing it doesn't matter how they play.
Barkley could be a great player, still does equate to the impact of a franchise quarterback, if indeed that is what Darnold becomes.
The don t take a quarterback crowd are hedging their bets.
Yeah, we can start to have a realistic discussion on that in about 3-5 years. Not Day 2 after preseason game number 1.
Nobody is hedging their bets after a single preseason game, trust me. Nothing changed anybody's opinion yet. If anything, the opening snap further entrenched the don't take a QB crowd in their take, even validated it.
There are literally people here trying to dissect Barkley's 4 carries in a preaseason game, and coming to the conclusion somehow that it is a negative rather than a positive that he took the opening snap 40 yards from our own twelve yard line. Madness.
The truth is, the don't take a QB crowd has been ecstatic, and continue to be, while the "take a QB at all costs crowd" has not been able to come to grips with what happened since the night of the draft.
I absolutely think Barkley will be great. Unless the Giants by some miracle win a Super Bowl because of him, if Darnold is a great franchise quarterback Barkley could be the best RB in the last decade and it still would have been the wrong pick.
I could make an argument that if Barkley is great and Darnold is just a good qb that it was the wrong pick.
I dont think anyone denies that Barkley was the safest pick. He's the one most likely to fulfill his potential. Problem is the ceiling value for a RB is no where near the ceiling value for a QB.
I very much fear 8-10 year stretch of horrific QB play after Simms was gone. I'm skeptical of Eli being able to turn the clock back, and even if he does no one behind him gives me any type of hope that we have our next QB already on the roster.
This is a QB driven league. We've been blessed to have one for the last 15 years, but his time is coming to an end much faster than any of us would like.
No you can't.
Barkley becomes the wrong pick if the Giants fail when Eli moves on and Barkley cannot help them be any better.
It isn't even tied to Darnold - it is tied to Eli's successor and whether or not getting Barkley this year kept us from a better QB.
What if Darnold becomes "good" like Andy Dalton. That would make Barkley the "wrong pick"?
Bullshit.
I think you even said that if Barkley and Darnold both are HoF'ers that it was the wrong pick. Complete bullshit!
Quote:
In comment 14036573 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
who would have thought...
if it takes a meaningless site for that, then you never loved football in the first place
your taking this site too seriously
You are taking my comment too seriously.
lmao
Whiners.
Pissed and moaned about Eli for his entire career.
Hate the best WR ever to wear blue because..you know, peeing.
They draft the best player in the draft and you whine and bitch that they didn't pick the fumble machine.
I've come to the conclusion that some of you are just miserable, unhappy people.
It’s simple, QB’s are hard to come by and have much more effect on a roster and also a much longer shelf life. Barkley will be great, no doubt, but it would have been a mistake if any of the other three QBs turn out to be franchise QBs.
I am on the fence with Eli, prob not a basher but definitely not a homer. He has to play well during the next two years too for this pick to make sense.
Quote:
that is great next year?
good luck with that wish
But Darnold is guaranteed to be great.
It’s simple, QB’s are hard to come by and have much more effect on a roster and also a much longer shelf life. Barkley will be great, no doubt, but it would have been a mistake if any of the other three QBs turn out to be franchise QBs.
I am on the fence with Eli, prob not a basher but definitely not a homer. He has to play well during the next two years too for this pick to make sense.
If Barkley truly is a HoFer then we currently have *3* Hofers on the roster. There’s wins and playoffs in there. Why is that irrelevant as opposed to having a franchise QB, a few years down the road. Especially, as we were heading wth no runnng game and a pretty qb . but no wins?
Again, what is the purpose of playing games?
Quote:
I could make an argument that if Barkley is great and Darnold is just a good qb that it was the wrong pick.
No you can't.
Barkley becomes the wrong pick if the Giants fail when Eli moves on and Barkley cannot help them be any better.
It isn't even tied to Darnold - it is tied to Eli's successor and whether or not getting Barkley this year kept us from a better QB.
What if Darnold becomes "good" like Andy Dalton. That would make Barkley the "wrong pick"?
Bullshit.
I think you even said that if Barkley and Darnold both are HoF'ers that it was the wrong pick. Complete bullshit!
A HOF QB and a hall of fame RB do not have even close to the same value to a team.
Let's say he's Ladanian Tomlinson and Darnold is Ben Roethlisberger.
This team isn't going anywhere unless Eli turns the clock back or they find a QB. Regardless of how good Barkley is. Let's just hope DG is right. He went the safe route, we'll see if he made the right decision over the next few years.
They ran the ball better in the playoffs, still not great but decent enough.
It's much easier to build a team that can contend for Super Bowls when you have a franchise QB. I'm not sure Eli is that player anymore.
The value of a hall of fame quarterback compared to the value of a hall of fame running back isn't even close. There's a reason decent QB's get paid on the same level that a top RB does.
I have no doubt Barkley will be great if he stays healthy, but I dont think it will matter unless the Giants find a long term answer at QB.
Like I said yesterday, go back to the hoF'ers and find one where the argument has ever been made that they were the wrong pick.
It is asinine both at face value and with repeated attempts to argue that the point has merit.
It doesn't.
If you pick a HoF player - it is the right pick and it is a great one.
Like I said above, so if Darnold simply becomes "good" like Dalton and Barkley is great like Edgerrin James, it will be the wrong pick?
What the fuck has Dalton won?
Did Ladanian Tomlinson win anything?
Quote:
Quote:
I could make an argument that if Barkley is great and Darnold is just a good qb that it was the wrong pick.
No you can't.
Barkley becomes the wrong pick if the Giants fail when Eli moves on and Barkley cannot help them be any better.
It isn't even tied to Darnold - it is tied to Eli's successor and whether or not getting Barkley this year kept us from a better QB.
What if Darnold becomes "good" like Andy Dalton. That would make Barkley the "wrong pick"?
Bullshit.
I think you even said that if Barkley and Darnold both are HoF'ers that it was the wrong pick. Complete bullshit!
A HOF QB and a hall of fame RB do not have even close to the same value to a team.
Let's say he's Ladanian Tomlinson and Darnold is Ben Roethlisberger.
This team isn't going anywhere unless Eli turns the clock back or they find a QB. Regardless of how good Barkley is. Let's just hope DG is right. He went the safe route, we'll see if he made the right decision over the next few years.
This is such a simplistic view. Of course a HOF QB is more valuable. But the Giants obviously feel that Barkley has a greater chance to be that player than Darnold does. What’s so difficult to understand about that?
And this idea that all Darnold has to be is “good”, for the pick to be bad is even more ludicrous. “Good” QBs can be found anywhere. Why would using the 2nd overall pick on a good QB be considered a success while a HOF RB would be a bad pick? The ONLY way to look back on this from Darnolds perspective and regret the pick is if he turns out great and Barkley doesn’t. Otherwise, contrary to popular belief, Darnold, Allen and Rosen aren’t the last QBs that will ever walk the earth. Especially if your standards for excellence is simply “good”.
If Barkley is a HOF player, it's not going to matter if the Giants don't have a franchise quarterback.
If you guaranteed DG before the draft that Darnold would be a HOF player and Barkley would be a HOF player, do you think he's even considering taking Barkley with the Giants current roster?
What has Adrian Peterson won?
I want the Giants to win Super Bowls. Thats it. I dont see it happening without a franchise QB.
Did Ladanian Tomlinson win anything?
How about Dan Marino? Archie Manning?
Trent Dilfer did. So did Nick Foles. Just this past year.
If Barkley is a HOF player, it's not going to matter if the Giants don't have a franchise quarterback.
If you guaranteed DG before the draft that Darnold would be a HOF player and Barkley would be a HOF player, do you think he's even considering taking Barkley with the Giants current roster?
What has Adrian Peterson won?
I want the Giants to win Super Bowls. Thats it. I dont see it happening without a franchise QB.
drafting a hall of fame quarterback does not guarantee you a superbowl, so i dont undersrand your point...
darnold and barkley as singular picks do not make their teams super bowl contenders...
Fucking asinine.
Dalton is the definition of a good QB. Not great. Not terrible. Good. Kirk Cousins is a good QB. Not great.
And yet none of it really matters. If you get a great player in a draft, it is a good pick. And the main point that matters more is who replaces Eli. Perhaps it is a draftee in our slot. Perhaps it is a veteran signee. Perhaps it is a draftee we trade up for.
We don't know.
That will be far more important to this debate than the relative strength of Darnold vs. Barkley.
Too many people gloss over this and it leads to terrible takes like a good player is a better pick than a great player or that a HoF players isn't the right pick
If Barkley is a HOF player, it's not going to matter if the Giants don't have a franchise quarterback.
If you guaranteed DG before the draft that Darnold would be a HOF player and Barkley would be a HOF player, do you think he's even considering taking Barkley with the Giants current roster?
What has Adrian Peterson won?
I want the Giants to win Super Bowls. Thats it. I dont see it happening without a franchise QB.
Again, like I already stated in my earlier post, it’s blatantly obvious that Gettleman DIDNT view Darnold as a HOFer. Otherwise yes, he would have been the pick. So again, why is this so hard to grasp?
He never even played in a Super Bowl, never mind won one.
When judging a player at the end of his career it's not Super Bowl or bust, but when building a team, that is what your goal should be.
It's hard to find a path to winning a Super Bowl unless you have a franchise QB. Not impossible, but very, very hard.
DG clearly didn't love any of the QB's. His giants tenure rides on finding a long term answer at QB, if he doesn't he will lose his job as a result in a few years.
And I’m not saying that their value is equal to an RB, it clearly isn’t. But I’ll gladly take the all purpose RB if we aren’t convinced the QB options were worth it. And the goal isn’t to find a “good” QB. If you have one you are generally going to be a mediocre and non threatening team.
I’m not really interested in arguing with you though. Have fun being mad at the Barkley pick.
Foles is the outlier. Magic carpet ride, flukey type run. But they arent ever in that position if they dont have Carson Wentz. Wentz got them homefield advantage throughout and a bye. Then Foles played two insane games in the NFC Title game and Super Bowl. He was horrible in the first playoff game.
BigBlueShock, I completely agree that DG didn't view Darnold as that kind of player. We will see if he is right or not. Even if Barkley is a smashing success, if the Giants don't find a QB in the next couple years for the long term, that will likely cost DG his job at some point.
I would love nothing more than Eli to turn the clock back and Webb to turn into a franchise level QB. I just don't think it's going to happen. I fear a 1992-1999 type of stretch for the Giants coming up.
Russell Wilson isn’t a great QB?
I think we would all do hand springs if Barkley has the career that AP had.
Unfortunately the second a running back comes into the league his prime starts. His best years start immediately. If the Giants take 5 years to find an answer at QB, they will likely have wasted Barkley's prime years. A lot rides on Eli turning the clock back for a couple of seasons. I don't think it's out of the question for him to do that, I just worry that the last few seasons have taken their toll on him and he's also what, 37?
Barkley should be great if he stays healthy, just not sure any of it will matter if Eli continues to suck or they can't find a good QB in the next 3 years.
This debate won't be decided until well down the road.
But making statements that good players are better picks than great players or that a HoF pick is the wrong one are mind-numbingly stupid.
Not sure why that type of drivel keeps getting repeated.
Quote:
You are completely missing the point, though it’s not surprising. The question isn’t can you start a thread day after day bitching about not taking a QB. The question is, why the hell would you want to? It’s over. They didn’t take one. At what point do we move on and focus on this team and what we have to do from this point forward?
We all know the answer. The QB at all costs crowd want to be right. They want to say “I told you so”. They want to believe that they are the smartest guys in the room. In most cases, their parents basements. Guys like you will deny it all day long, but it is incredibly obvious that you’d rather see Darnold succeed and Barkley fail because it’s more gratifying for you to be right than it is for the Giants to succeed. You don’t appear to ebe enjoying any of this. You wanted a QB and it’s more important for your weird ass ego that we regret the move than it is to actually support the team on the field.
Don’t bother denying it. We all know you will claim it’s bullshit. But you and all the other QB at all costs guys are proving the point on a daily basis. Many times, multiple times a day. Good luck in your endeavor
I don't know how old you are but that's a pretty immature post.
You open with a needless insult and then include a tired "living in your parents basement" burn and I'm supposed to take you seriously?
I don't for one minute think that if the Giants had decided to go with a QB @ 2, that the BBIers who wanted Barkley or some other non-QB would be rooting against the team because the Giants didn't take their guy. It's an idiotic narrative. We are ALL Giants fans and we ALL want them to succeed.
Posters will return to claim that they were right, there's no denying that. But nobody is rooting against them just so they can run to BBI and "win" a debate.
Are you new around here? Lol
Quote:
russell wilson, nick foles, joe flacco 3 qbs who have won superbowls recently and none are great qbs...
Russell Wilson isn’t a great QB?
wilson is a good player who makes a lot happen with his legs but i dont think he is a great quarterback at all
This debate won't be decided until well down the road.
But making statements that good players are better picks than great players or that a HoF pick is the wrong one are mind-numbingly stupid.
Not sure why that type of drivel keeps getting repeated.
i made this point yesterday and got killed for it...
See how stupid the titles argument is?
However, between the two, I think its fairly easy to understand that a HOF-type QB contributes more to the overall equation of reaching that goal versus a HOF-type RB.
Time is the only thing that will tell us if Gettleman's view of reaching that goal was sound...
Quote:
In comment 14037050 nygiants16 said:
Quote:
russell wilson, nick foles, joe flacco 3 qbs who have won superbowls recently and none are great qbs...
Russell Wilson isn’t a great QB?
wilson is a good player who makes a lot happen with his legs but i dont think he is a great quarterback at all
Struggle immensely with the view of not characterizing Wilson as a great QB with his immense level of talent, production and wins. Not to say anything of the fact he has never missed a start in his career...
See how stupid the titles argument is?
Competing for titles consistently is damn near impossible without a franchise QB.
When Andrew Luck went down, the Colts went from being in the AFC title game to being one of the worst teams in the entire sport.
The idea is to build a team that can compete for super bowls consistently. It takes a lot of things coming together to win even one.
Fatman, again, the last time the Giants won the Super Bowl they had the worst running game in the league during the regular season. The offensive line point is a good one, you need a serviceable line to compete. A solid running game is the least important component to building a team to compete for titles. It's not all that hard to put together a running back corps that can help you win a title. Look at the Eagles. Undrafted rookie free agent, Blount who they signed in the off-season on a team friendly deal because he was not highly sought after, traded for Ajayi mid season who the Dolphins didn't want anymore. They literally put their entire backfield together in the matter of a few months.
Tomlinson and Peterson are by far the two best running backs of the last decade. Neither one even played in a Super Bowl. Total I think they only played in 15 playoff games combined.
Barkley can stand on his head every game for the next 5 years but it's not going to matter if the guy under center plays like shit.
How any of you are comfortable with the quarterback position right now is beyond me. They have no chance to even sniff competing for a title if that position isn't figured out.
It's not Super Bowl or bust, but when you're building a team that has to be your goal, putting a team together that can compete for Super Bowls.
DG made large bets on Eli and Webb. He also made a large bet that the QB's he passed on would not be franchise quarterbacks.
I hope he is right. I'm not all that confident that he will be, but I'll root every sunday for him to be right. We all want the same thing here, but some of you refuse to question DG for not taking a QB.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
That's why it is asinine to say that a good Darnold will make a great Barkley a wrong pick. Even in your examples, "good" QB's aren't winning consistently, franchise QB's are.
I'm not questioning DG for picking Barkley if he turns out great. And again the point that is eluding you is that it isn't picking Darnold or bust.
It is picking Darnold, or drafting a 1st rounder two years from now, or getting a vet pickup like the Redskins did, or having a mid to late-round pick develop. Darnold is just one of many possible ways to get the next QB.
And the larger point is that this discussion really should be tabled until Eli isn't here and the next guy is because until then, it isn't about Darnold vs. Barkley. It is about the next QB vs. Darnold - if Darnold is even still around then.
Unfortunately, this topic seems to have become too polarizing to allow for much in the way of meaningful conversation.
I for one will never understand why people would want to go the first option. Are you really going to piss and moan for the next decade? What’s the end game? You get to say “I told you so!”? We get it. You thought Gettleman should have thrown a dart and just picked a QB, regardless of their evaluations, simply because you wanted a QB. At what point do we move on? It’s not our fault he didn’t take a QB but we are the ones that have to live with it. Twice over. First on the field and secondly on these incessant posts. Lucky us!
Unfortunately, this topic seems to have become too polarizing to allow for much in the way of meaningful conversation.
Good post. Darnold proves the Giants wrong or not. SB proves the Giants wrong or not. Regardless, the only meaningful conversation that would resonate with me is how they look after the season plays out and beyond
Quote:
I hope he is right. I'm not all that confident that he will be, but I'll root every sunday for him to be right. We all want the same thing here, but some of you refuse to question DG for not taking a QB.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
That's why it is asinine to say that a good Darnold will make a great Barkley a wrong pick. Even in your examples, "good" QB's aren't winning consistently, franchise QB's are.
I'm not questioning DG for picking Barkley if he turns out great. And again the point that is eluding you is that it isn't picking Darnold or bust.
It is picking Darnold, or drafting a 1st rounder two years from now, or getting a vet pickup like the Redskins did, or having a mid to late-round pick develop. Darnold is just one of many possible ways to get the next QB.
And the larger point is that this discussion really should be tabled until Eli isn't here and the next guy is because until then, it isn't about Darnold vs. Barkley. It is about the next QB vs. Darnold - if Darnold is even still around then.
Quote:
The decision to use the #2 overall pick as an investment in Eli's successor or not was a franchise altering decision. The decision not to take a QB was controversial --right or wrong. There were a lot of strong statements made, such as there being no franchise QBs in this draft. We will see. But this debate is going to fade away anytime soon, and the fact that the most likely QB prospect will start his career in NY is going to keep this front and center for a long time. Better get used to it.
Unfortunately, this topic seems to have become too polarizing to allow for much in the way of meaningful conversation.
Good post. Darnold proves the Giants wrong or not. SB proves the Giants wrong or not. Regardless, the only meaningful conversation that would resonate with me is how they look after the season plays out and beyond
Quote:
I hope he is right. I'm not all that confident that he will be, but I'll root every sunday for him to be right. We all want the same thing here, but some of you refuse to question DG for not taking a QB.
If a QB answer isn't found, it doesn't matter if Saquon is Marshall Faulk, the Giants aren't competing for titles.
That's why it is asinine to say that a good Darnold will make a great Barkley a wrong pick. Even in your examples, "good" QB's aren't winning consistently, franchise QB's are.
I'm not questioning DG for picking Barkley if he turns out great. And again the point that is eluding you is that it isn't picking Darnold or bust.
It is picking Darnold, or drafting a 1st rounder two years from now, or getting a vet pickup like the Redskins did, or having a mid to late-round pick develop. Darnold is just one of many possible ways to get the next QB.
And the larger point is that this discussion really should be tabled until Eli isn't here and the next guy is because until then, it isn't about Darnold vs. Barkley. It is about the next QB vs. Darnold - if Darnold is even still around then.
But the timing was perfect now. New coach, new GM, new offense, #2 pick in a stacked QB draft, a potential out in Eli's contract, and the opportunity to free up a lot of cap space for Beckham's impending deal. A lot of things had to align, and they did. In terms of moving from one franchise QB to the next (one of the hardest managerial feats to execute in sports) it didn't get any cleaner than that.