Saquon Barkley is a terrific talent. I have zero doubts that he will be a great player in this league.
That being said, is there anyone still left on BBI who actually believes he was the correct pick for this franchise? I'm not being a smart ass, I'd legitimately like to hear why if you believe that.
This franchise has no real plan for the future right now. Gettleman has not earned the benefit of the doubt. He very clearly was wrong in his evaluation of the current team. He clearly believed they were ready to win now, which is obviously very far from the truth. He clearly believed Eli had a lot left in the tank. That doesn't seem to be the case.
The single most important job of a new GM is properly evaluating your current roster. A lot of people on BBI will say this is hindsight, but it's really not. Many of us on BBI didn't believe this team was ready to win now. A lot of our worst fears have been realized. Some will point to 2016 as a reason to go for it this year that they are actually more talented than they were in 2016. The problem I have with that is 2016 is the only year in the last what, 5 years, that the team hasn't sucked shit. That entire season seemed very flukey. They won a shit load of close games. The defense played way above their heads. Eli did not have a great year.
It's more than fair to be worried about the direction of this franchise with John Mara and Gettleman running the show. Most of the decisions John Mara has made have blown up in his face. There is no way to know this for sure, but I'd guess that DG is the only GM that the Giants could have hired that would have taken Barkley. His comments in the press are the most frightening of all. Ripping analytics and talking as if we're still in the 1980's.
Right or wrong, I also think DG's age played a role in the decisions made in the off-season. He's 67 years old. He's unlikely to be thinking of where this franchise will be in a decade.
It's still hard to fathom that anyone could watch the Giants the last 4-5 years and thought that taking a running back #2 overall was a smart business decision.
A lot of people on BBI in the off-season also thought that Davis Webb was the legitimate future of the Giants. Yet another thing i'll never be able to wrap my head around. He couldn't get off the bench last year and play over Geno Smith for a regime that drafted him. That told me all I needed to know about him.
Eli Manning is not the main problem with this team. But the fact is he's 37 years old, has not played well in years, and with the current roster it's not going to get any better. He could have Barry Sanders in his prime back there and it wouldn't make much difference. The line is a total train wreck. Eli is clearly shot mentally playing behind this line for the last 5 years. Physically he still has something left but each year that passes he's going to have less and less left.
I actually feel bad for Barkley. It's not his fault that the roster sucks.
The Giants desperately need a QB of the future. 2019 doesn't look to be a good year to need a QB, the likely top QB has a lot of character concerns. Barkley could stand on his head every game and without a QB for the future and a new offensive line none of it will ever matter.
John Mara has really put this franchise in a terrible situation. There is a legitimate argument to be made that the New York Giants are in the worst shape for the future of any team in the sport.
Yes, it's only 2 games into the season. But we've seen this movie too many times in the last 5 years.
The owner can't be fired, but he hasn't given any Giants fan reason to be confident in any decision that he makes. He totally botched the Eli situation last year, made the wrong hire at HC in McAdoo, kept Jerry Reese as the GM for way too long, stayed within his comfort zone when he hired Gettleman. His batting average is close to .00 in the last 5 years when it comes to decision making.
I'm genuinely interested in hearing from people who still believe that Barkley was the correct pick for this franchise. Every season that goes by without being a contender is a season wasted of Barkley's prime.
This really was not that hard to see coming.
Nobody on this board knows what Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen are going to become. But if Gettleman and Shurmur did not believe they were likely franchise QBs, they should not have drafted them. Maybe they were wrong, but I don't see how anyone can think they know definitively after two games.
they made the Cowboys D line look like DaBears and Jacksonville Dline -- and I don't think the Cowboys are really all that good
I have no idea what Gettleman and Shurmur had planned to correct this team long term (and yes there is a plan). But it is obvious that Darnold did not peak their interest or give them pause to select a QB.
How can one watch the past two games, see the talent that Barkley has and go on unhinged rants that he's not the right pick?
And in doing so, why is this being debated strictly as Barkley vs. a QB?
If you are concerned after the 1st two games, the real issue is still the OL. So if you really want to debate the pick, it isn't Barkley vs. Darnold. It is Barkley vs. trading down to amass a bunch of picks to be used on the OL.
It is a fucking joke at this point. "Win now" should become a billboard hoisted over every fucking chucklehead who can't get past the fact we didn't pick a QB. Doesn't mean shit, but a truckload of people keep using it as some fucking mantra.
they made the Cowboys D line look like DaBears and Jacksonville Dline -- and I don't think the Cowboys are really all that good
Seeing as how the last three oline coaches failed, it may not be the cook, but the ingredients....
He also admittedly based his opinion on Eli's future based on one game last year....which is absurd. And he's so damn sure he's right that analytics are a joke....and he didn't seem to show any doubt that maybe one of the QB's in this years draft really was a franchise QB....disregarding the consensus of just about everyone else that this was a potentially historic draft for QB's.
Maybe I'm wrong about all this, but he just never seems to consider the possibility that he could be wrong about any of this, and he doesn't really seem to be interested in gathering consensus....he seems to have an attitude that he's forgotten more about football than anybody else in the league knows...to the point where he can openly mock the way just about all other teams are doing business.
Again, maybe I'm wrong about all this but that's sure the impression that he's putting out there.
Nobody on this board knows what Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen are going to become. But if Gettleman and Shurmur did not believe they were likely franchise QBs, they should not have drafted them. Maybe they were wrong, but I don't see how anyone can think they know definitively after two games.
I dont think anyone believes the Giants would be anything other than 0-2 no matter who they took. You're missing the entire point of the post.
You don't take a running back #2 overall when you have holes all over the roster, and like it or not the Giants have a hole at QB right now and for the future.
What is the future of this team right now? Where is the path to being a contender? Without a QB to lead this team (and an offensive line to block), Saquon Barkley can stand on his head for 16 games and it won't matter. Barkley is not making this team a contender.
The goal for any franchise should be to build a team that can contend consistently. I don't see any way the Giants do that until they get a franchise QB and improve the line.
Eli's physical ability has diminished. I don't doubt that he can still play, but there is no way he can play behind this line. It's a recipe for disaster that DG should have seen coming and didn't.
Taking any RB #2 overall when you clearly aren't ready to win now and need a QB of the future and there were multiple QB's available is just bad business.
DG and Mara both somehow believed this team had a chance to contend this year.
Everyone judging draft picks after two games is occupying their lives with useless banter.
Agreed. Darnold was not a perfect prospect, especially given his propensity for INTs. But he was still excellent, and the positional value of the QB is greater than that of a RB. It's also unusual to be able to get a prospect like Darnold without having to surrender an enormous number of draft picks. The Jets in fact traded three second round picks just to move up a few spots to #3. But I was fine with either him or Barkley. We can already see that Barkley has awesome talent.
My concern is that we may have overpaid for Solder and Omameh. I am also puzzled why the OL has so many miscommunications, and seems confused on many plays about blocking assignments. The irony is that Barkley also needs work in that area, but that's pretty typical for rookie RBs.
I dont think anyone believes the Giants would be anything other than 0-2 no matter who they took. You're missing the entire point of the post.
You don't take a running back #2 overall when you have holes all over the roster, and like it or not the Giants have a hole at QB right now and for the future.
What is the future of this team right now? Where is the path to being a contender? Without a QB to lead this team (and an offensive line to block), Saquon Barkley can stand on his head for 16 games and it won't matter. Barkley is not making this team a contender.
No I think we got the point. Barkley was clearly the best player in the draft. He was the highest rated player ever in any draft.
I do not believe that the prototypical QB of the past will be the prototypical QB of the future in the NFL.
I also believe that until the line is corrected drafting a QB is useless.
I don't know if either are a franchise QB. Neither does Gettleman, the Jets, the Cardinals or you. But your question is based on the premise that these guys are franchise QBs, which is an opinion, not a fact.
But add in the fact that the average RB career is short and fhe average QB’s career is long should be enough.
It was a poor decision by a team that did not want to face waving goodbye to an icon. I hated when George Young cut Phil Simms but great GM’s make touch decisions.
Gettleman and Mara put the Giants just where they didn’t want to be, QB hell.
So, tell me how drafting a QB would have helped them this year.
I don't know if either are a franchise QB. Neither does Gettleman, the Jets, the Cardinals or you. But your question is based on the premise that these guys are franchise QBs, which is an opinion, not a fact.
You could say that about any QB. Nothing's a fact until it's established. It's all opinion. The question is whether the opinion turns out to be right or wrong.
So, tell me how drafting a QB would have helped them this year.
You don't do it for this year. You do it for the next 10-15 years.
Still more important to have a QB for the future. It's so much easier to find a path to being a contender regularly when you have a franchise QB. You
It would be a lot easier to swallow another shitty season if the franchise seemed to be moving in the right direction. Does anyone here believe that DG has this team moving in the right direction?
I have no idea what to think of Shurmur. DG scares the hell out of me. His comments in the off-season and his decisions clearly show that he actually believed this team could contend this year. I don't think it was just your usual coach or GM speak, his actions backed up that he actually believed that, and that is frightening.
His rant about how analytics about running backs being complete nonsense should scare the hell out of everyone on BBI. He fell in love with a player and wasn't going to let anything change his mind.
“You know what I say about that. It is a crock. At the end of the day, a great player is a great player. He is a touchdown maker. He is a threat to take it to the house every time he gets his hands on the ball,” Gettleman said. “I think a lot of that stuff is nonsense. I think it is someone who had decided to get into the analytics of it and went through whatever. Jonathan Stewart is in his 10th year and he has not lost anything. I don’t believe in that. I don’t care who you take, they can all get hurt.”
That above is an actual quote from DG. That's the guy who is leading this franchise right now. He actually said that Jonathan Stewart hasn't lost anything.
A lot of people like to rip on Greg for bringing up his "touched by the hand of God" comment, but DG's sound bytes should not make anyone comfortable. It's fricking weird to say shit like that. Believes that analytics are a crock, but says shit like Barkley was touched by the hand of God.
shitty teams don't just take QB's in the high picks, even if they aren't sold on a QB - they often take the best player or their top need.
Why is taking Barkley considered a "win now" move but taking somebody else indicates something completely different?
Was Leonard Fournette a win now move? Was Clowney? Eric Fisher? Jake Long? Mario Williams? Reggie Bush and Ronnie Brown weren't win now moves either.
It is a choice in how to build a roster, absent a functioning OL. How to build the team can be debated, but to act like picking a RB is a win now move while picking a QB isn't is just rationalization a lot of people are using because we didn't pick who we thought we should have.
And incessently whine about it.....
So, tell me how drafting a QB would have helped them this year.
It’s not about this year. This year was never going to be good. I’d rather be 0-2 (en route to 0-7) with all these problems and Gallman as RB1 and Darnold waiting in the wings.
Sounds a lot like the multitude of people who wanted Darnold, no?
They could have taken a QB and then fixed the offensive line over the next couple off-seasons.
This wasn't going to be a rebuild that happened overnight. The problem is DG has not treated it like a rebuild.
Having a QB who can actually move would also help the o-line. They'd still suck, but they wouldn't be as bad if they didn't have a statue back there.
Is this the last year of the Giants' existence?
Quote:
You are basing your entire post on one belief - Darnold or Rosen are franchise QBs who solve the QB problem for the future. If they aren't, drafting a QB at 2 is the worst possible thing you could have done.
I don't know if either are a franchise QB. Neither does Gettleman, the Jets, the Cardinals or you. But your question is based on the premise that these guys are franchise QBs, which is an opinion, not a fact.
You could say that about any QB. Nothing's a fact until it's established. It's all opinion. The question is whether the opinion turns out to be right or wrong.
That is exactly my point. After two games we have learned nothing about which was the better pick. Darnold could become Peyton Manning, or he could become Ryan Leaf. More likely he will be somewhere in between. But to think that there is now somehow proof or validation that one was a better pick is just silly. If Darnold becomes Ryan Leaf picking Barkley was a stroke of genius.
Quote:
drafted Darnold then they would still have a crappy offensive line, their main running back would be a mid-round draft pick (Gallman) and Eli would still be the starting QB.
So, tell me how drafting a QB would have helped them this year.
It’s not about this year. This year was never going to be good. I’d rather be 0-2 (en route to 0-7) with all these problems and Gallman as RB1 and Darnold waiting in the wings.
Which is why I’d probably feel better if the NYG were the Cards. They’re arguably the worst team in the nfl, but they have their future QB already on the roster. That also means they won’t panic and reach for an inferior QB prospect next April which is my concern for the NYG.
If the Chargers had taken Fred Taylor over Ryan Leaf would you still say two games in they made the wrong choice?
So why I say it's too soon is because you need to see how Darnold turns out.
If Darnold is Peyton Manning, then yes it's the wrong pick.
But if Darnold becomes Ryan Leaf 2.0 then no, Giants dodged a bullet and were lucky to get Barkley.
I would not expand beyond those two players, it's really Barkley vs Darnold.
And the only other way the Barkley picks turns out to be the right pick is if the Giants are so bad again this year they get a top pick in 2019 and get the QB then.
Because Barkley + Franchise QB is better than franchise QB + no Barkley.
So, again, in short, it's too soon, but it will come down to Barkley vs Darnold and of course I realize this is second guessing, because it's too soon to evaluate two games in to their respective careers.
2018 wasn’t the only year we could get a QB. There’s the next draft, trades, FA...we will get another QB after Eli and they will have a leg up on the learning curve due to the skill positions we have in place.
Bitching about it incessantly won’t change anyone’s mind. These daily posts are fucking dumb.
Picking a RB with no OL?
Is DG's plan to fix the OL, the correct one?
Passing over 5 QB's?
If Darnold turns out to be the "guy", he will be playing in our stadium for years, but he won't be on our team....talk about rubbing salt into the wound!
All this talk about Darnold behind this line....who says he would play this year? He learns the ropes by watching Eli.....he get into games in the fourth quarter this season, when there are blowouts...
And the money saved by releasing Eli next season(if his play continues like this), is used in free agency to fix the OL or other holes in this team....That is a plan.....and any one of the other 4 qb's could be inserted into it....but DG sold ownership on none of them being a franchise QB.....only time will tell.....
As for Barkley, he is on this team, and with all the pounding he is taking behind this OL, I hope we don't have another Rodney Hampton situation...
People freaked out when Webb was cut. (I wasn't happy) Shurmur said they do have a plan for QB, they are just not telling what it is.
Just because a team picks a QB doesn't mean their plan is correct. The Jets oline is decent, Darnold will survive.
So which new GM is winning the NFL after two games?
It was about the next decade.
DG can deny it all he wants, but the numbers don't lie, RB's primes are significantly shorter than most positions. Barkley's prime started 2 games ago.
It doesn't bother anyone in here when the Giants GM says that arguments backed up by numbers are a crock but then says that the RB was touched by the hand of God?
they made the Cowboys D line look like DaBears and Jacksonville Dline -- and I don't think the Cowboys are really all that good
This +1. And to answer Mook's question - Yes. Barkley was the correct pick. I think Darnold would have been an awful pick. Not considering Allen, but the only QB that should have been in consideration out of Mayfield, Darnold, or Rosen was Rosen.
He just didn't replace the QB. There's only so much that can be done in an offseason. They traded JPP and flipped the pick for Hill. They signed a couple seasoned LB's. The OL is gone except for Flowers. They drafted Barkley. The locker room malcontents from last year are history, as well as those terrible mid round picks.
Basically, he did about as much as one can do - he just didn't change the QB so people say it isn't a rebuild. The roster has turned over by like 40%!!
We get it - people wanted Darnold. But these false narratives are just fucking ridiculous at this point.
Win now moves would've been trading for Mack, signing Dez and mortgaging the future.
Teams draft BPA. Barkley was the BPA at #2, apparently by a wide margin. My understanding is that the Giants liked Darnold, Rudolph, and Lauletta. They got Lauletta, although I'd be surprised if a fourth round pick is Eli's long term successor.
Eli's immobility definitely magnifies the problems of the OL. He may also at 37 be shellshocked because of the constant beatings he's taken behind substandard OL. But Darnold would be killed behind this OL, escaping just a few times more than Eli. Two and three defenders are often on top of Eli within a matter of a few seconds. Teams are also getting pressure and stopping the run with just four or five DL, meaning that any QB would be throwing against six or seven defenders on almost every play.
If the argument was to continue to improve the OL, then I assume the Giants could have traded with the Browns at #4 and taken Nelson. I would have been fine with them doing that, contingent upon receiving a lot of draft picks. The only players I didn't want were Mayfield (size and off the field concerns), Rosen (injuries), and Allen (accuracy).
Quote:
In comment 14082831 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
You are basing your entire post on one belief - Darnold or Rosen are franchise QBs who solve the QB problem for the future. If they aren't, drafting a QB at 2 is the worst possible thing you could have done.
I don't know if either are a franchise QB. Neither does Gettleman, the Jets, the Cardinals or you. But your question is based on the premise that these guys are franchise QBs, which is an opinion, not a fact.
You could say that about any QB. Nothing's a fact until it's established. It's all opinion. The question is whether the opinion turns out to be right or wrong.
That is exactly my point. After two games we have learned nothing about which was the better pick. Darnold could become Peyton Manning, or he could become Ryan Leaf. More likely he will be somewhere in between. But to think that there is now somehow proof or validation that one was a better pick is just silly. If Darnold becomes Ryan Leaf picking Barkley was a stroke of genius.
You usually don't get instant results from a QB the first year. Eli was terrible in 2004.
Some, like me, would like to know the reasoning behind the Gettlemen pick. I have heard varying opinions:
He didn't believe in any of the quarterbacks
Mara didn t want to face the push back selecting a quarterback would bring
Barkley is a generational talent.
There is already a plan in place for getting the next quarterback.
They just didn t want to put Eli in that position.
Some, get pissed Off that we who wanted a quarterback, won t accept their opinion as to why our logic is flawed. They often state their opinion as if it is fact, and wonder how many times they are going to have to explain it to us.
I never felt Barkley was the correct pick, I was on Darnold well before the season ended, and was stunned at the pick.
However, as Phil Simms has stated, there are other quarterbacks out there. And even if the Giants have to pay a much steep price to get one, it will be nice to see the young kid have a weapon like Barkley
Not all is lost
Really good post.
However, I am concerned about our Oline. They are being made to look ridiculous out there. They made the Cowboys look like the Jacksonville and Bears DLines -- and I think the Cowboys Dline is not anywhere's as good as Da Bears or Jacksonville.
If Eli makes it to the Bears Game Dec 2nd - and our Oline keeps playing the way they are playing, that's the night he's going to end up being maimed for life -- but that's big if because we have to play the Eagles twice before that -- and their Dline is definitely up to the task of sacking Eli hard all game
then there's the Saints, the Panthers, the Falcons, and the Redskins DLines to contend with before Dec 2nd as well, and they will have watched the tape of the last two games. Right now I have a hard time believing that Eli will be healthy enough to play in the Bears game
God help us and Eli Manning
It was about the next decade.
DG can deny it all he wants, but the numbers don't lie, RB's primes are significantly shorter than most positions. Barkley's prime started 2 games ago.
It doesn't bother anyone in here when the Giants GM says that arguments backed up by numbers are a crock but then says that the RB was touched by the hand of God?
It sounds like you don't like Gettleman and are looking for proof you are right. You may get it one day, but you don't have it yet. It's absolutely fair to question Gettleman as the plan so far isn't working and everyone is entitled to an opinion. What you are not entitled to is "why did the Giants pass on a franchise QB?" because there simply is no evidence that they did, just an opinion that they did.
Gettleman was well aware of the pressure on the #2 pick. He looked to trade down but the offers sucked (his hot dogs and pretzels comment).
So you are left with making a pick that you want to be sure you hit on. And as I said on the thread the other day, my preference was to pick a QB and set up a Mahomes situation where they would sit behind Eli for one year and take over in 2019. However, the scouts were all lukewarm on these QBs. There was no automatic guy that was a clear franchise QB in the vein of Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck coming out. They had talent but had enough blemishes to be worried.
Gettleman simply wouldn't accept that risk with a prospect like Barkley staring him in the face. And yes, I think the love affair with Eli after last years debacle weighed in that the Giants convinced themselves that Eli wasn't done and had another couple of years in him to allow them to keep searching.
Ultimately, in a game of risk management, they banked on the fact that Barkley was a sure thing who will produce for 5-8 years at a high level. And that level is at Hall of Fame quality. They didn't feel the same way about Darnold or Rosen or any of the QBs. And to miss at QB at the #2 pick would cripple the franchise.
It was about the next decade.
DG can deny it all he wants, but the numbers don't lie, RB's primes are significantly shorter than most positions. Barkley's prime started 2 games ago.
It doesn't bother anyone in here when the Giants GM says that arguments backed up by numbers are a crock but then says that the RB was touched by the hand of God?
Wrong or right draft pick decisions cannot be made in game 2 of their rookie seasons.
If Darnold shits the bed and Barkley winds up like Marshall Faulk was it still the wrong decision?
You can say what you would have done, but you can't evaluate the right or wrong for a few years.
I think it's clear Gettleman or Shurmur and/or others did not believe Darnold or Allen or Rosen were future franchise QB's.
Someone please explain to me why the Giants future is so hopeless, I'm trying to understand.
Even after cutting Webb loose, the Giants have a developmental QB in Lauletta and all their picks moving forward.
Maybe NYG will like a QB in this year's crop better than last year's? If they suck as much as you think they will, then they'll be at the top of the draft again.
The Rams took Gurley first, then Goff, most likely because that's just what their pick positioning dictated. That seems to be working out pretty well, no?
NYG took the draft's best player with the 2nd pick and so far Barkley has looked every bit as good as he did in college. I'd say they did great.
It doesn't bother anyone in here when the Giants GM says that arguments backed up by numbers are a crock but then says that the RB was touched by the hand of God?
What numbers? What analytics? This isn't baseball where the game is exactly the same from Little League thru MLB. There is little comparison from CFB to NFL, especially with QBs. Even the oline is different. There are certainly measurables..strength, explosiveness, speed and size. But those have been the same for ever, and I'm certain DG is not dismissing those.
I wanted a QB. I didn't think the value was there for a RB at #2. Barkley is a tremendous talent, and seems liek a great kid, but if we are in QB purgatory for the next 5 or so years, we will regret this pick.
The draft isn't even about 1 year, much less 2 games.
The wrong move was cutting bait on Webb. A QB going into his 2nd season, you have to have a little more patience with him to see what you have with him. Webb may never be anything in the NFL, but many QBs grow a great deal from year 2 to 3, and DG kicked him to the curb. It was premature knowing we have a 37 year old QB and now only and 4th rounder as a potential replacement.
But, the draft produces QBs every year, and if he gets his QB in the 2019 draft, everything will be fine as long as it isn't a bust pick.
Barkley was the safe pick.
I do believe Barkley will be great, but I don't think it will translate into much difference as far as wins and losses go.
The possibility is also there that Barkley won't live up the hype. We all (myself included) act like it would be impossible for him to be a bust, but it's still a possibility. Trent Richardson was not as highly thought of but no one thought he would bust and he did.
And I have no way to tell if that was the right or wrong move. Apparently a lot of other people are able to go through the mental gymnastics to say it was a mistake.
The only thing that's been clear to me is that people thinking they have an answer now or anytime during this season really are just exposing themselves as being reactionary and not very good at understanding how evaluations of moves like these are truly made.
It is pure frustration, a joy that gets spread daily in these types of threads.
That being said, I would have picked Darnold and if you put a gun to my head, I would say Mook's entire post will ultimately be proven right in a year or two down the line.
Some might say Sanders, but SB is even twitchier and smoother.
They just didn t want to put Eli in that position.
Some, get pissed Off that we who wanted a quarterback, won t accept their opinion as to why our logic is flawed. They often state their opinion as if it is fact, and wonder how many times they are going to have to explain it to us.
Look at it from the other side...why is your opinion for a QB the only answer? You are saying "Fuck You" Barkley people, we are the only correct opinion. Yes your logic can be flawed and the people who wanted Barkley are entitled to their opinion and it is not wrong.
Well you Darnold people are doing the exact same thing..Darnold was the only pick as if fact and you keep explaining too.
I thought the Giants would take Rosen or Darnold during the draft. Honestly, either one, behind this line would likey be hurt. Rosen might be out of football already. Hopefully the OL gets its head out of its collective rear ends.
I was honestly hoping for a trade down to amass picks during the draft - this team has so many holes. Our OL sucks, our DL can't pass rush, our LBs can't pass cover, our CB depth is weak. Gettlemen has his job cut out for him.
Quote:
He fell in love with a player and wasn't going to let anything change his mind.
Sounds a lot like the multitude of people who wanted Darnold, no?
I wish there was an icon or emoji for a Mic drop. Damn you’re good, even if you’re Fat..😂
Barkley was the safe pick.
I do believe Barkley will be great, but I don't think it will translate into much difference as far as wins and losses go.
The possibility is also there that Barkley won't live up the hype. We all (myself included) act like it would be impossible for him to be a bust, but it's still a possibility. Trent Richardson was not as highly thought of but no one thought he would bust and he did.
Barkley might be great. Odell is great. What’s the NYG record with Odell? It’s pretty shitty. Eli’s crappy play is a significant reason for that. The consistently good playoff teams get consistently good QB play. The NYG haven’t since SB 46. The record since then, which is absolutely atrocious, backs it up. Yeah other factors are involved, but Eli needs to be upgraded. This team won’t contend for anything but top 5 picks until they do so.
b) there aren't good QB's in practically every draft and that if the Giants didn't take one this year - they'll never get another opportunity. Teams do what they have to do to get their QB. If there is a guy on the board in the future that they feel is can't miss, the Giants will put themselves in a position to grab him.
This was not the year to draft a QB. I loved the Barkley pick and still do. But the only other thing I would have done differently is trade the #2 for more picks and strengthened the OL. If you're going for rebuild, thats the right way to do it. Drafting a QB now would have been almost as short-sighted as drafting Barkley.
If Gentleman is able to build on the oline next season and Solder and Hernandez get better through this season we will have a team that is a great fit for a new QB coming in. I think of Rothlisberger his first two years although there was a better defense. I also think of Russell Wilson in this regards as well.
If we can have a strong team built and then have a QB on a rookie contract it sets up multiple years of success.
Although the Giants are hoping to win now with Eli, I think they were being realistic and planning for the long term as well.
Zero idea whether or not Lauletta will be our future. I’m all in on Shurmur’s ability to see what need to be seen in a QB prospect. Time will tell
The Jet-Giant preseason game thread was filled with all this Darnold hyperbole.
Just remember this, Darnold could lead the Jets to the next 2 AFC title games and still not wind up being the guy. Playing at a franchise QB level is the easier part for a lot of these guys, the "staying power" is the harder part.
Let's see what happens.
I don’t really give a shit who our QB is with an OLine that can’t perform.
The offense wasn't one Barkley away from being competitive, while the defensive core was pretty strong and would have benefited from a pass rusher. RBs tend to have a shorter shelf life than DEs do, and this was a deep draft for RBs so we could have picked up a lesser talented back in the 2nd round or later.
Instead, we added another player to an offense that's still completely inept. Think about that for a second - we pay $20M for a QB, an ungodly sum to a WR, and spent a second overall pick (and pay top dollar capwise) on a RB, and we have an offense that is absolutely terrible.
I keep reading that Gettleman knew this, and expected it to be a multi year rebuild - in which case, picking the RB makes even less sense.
At some point we have to come to the realization that the Giants don't know what the fuck they're doing, and they haven't for some time now. In fact, it's very likely that the only thing that kept them competitive was Eli in his prime, and that with age and the beatings that prime window closed a lot sooner than we expected.
Just remember this, Darnold could lead the Jets to the next 2 AFC title games and still not wind up being the guy. Playing at a franchise QB level is the easier part for a lot of these guys, the "staying power" is the harder part.
Let's see what happens.
Two QBs come to mind...Snachez and Kaepernick.
Not that I think Darnold isn't better than either one, but maybe he isn't...
If that option was available.
So Darnold can take the team to multiple championship games and be the wrong pick, but Barkley can continue a sub 4.0 YPC and have been the right pick.
What exactly are we trying to do, here? Isn't the goal to win football games?
They could have picked the best defensive player on the board and built a solid D that could have made the Giants a tough out while they got their offensive shit together. Instead, they got another expensive skill position piece we can't use this year.
What is relevant:
Should we still play Eli Manning when games become irrelevant and we are officially eliminated from playoff consideration? Or, should the Giants even wait that long?
I'm struggling mightily to stay positive and to believe the season can be turned around. But what if the game in Dallas portends 2017 playing out all over again in 2018?
We can't predict the future, but we do know this:
A team that sucks at the LOS ain't going anywhere, and neither Eli Manning nor any other QB can do a damn thing about it.
So, at some point in time, I think the question becomes:
Why play Eli Manning if -- and when -- the games become irrelevant?
(1) Eli still gives us the best chance of winning, whether the games are meaningful or not. Or, in the words of Herm Edwards: "You play to win the game";
(2) Sentimental value that harks back to better times;
(3) John Mara doesn't want to admit to his fanbase that the Giants are throwing in the towel;
(4) Why ruin Kyle Lauletta's young career (ala David Carr's first season with Houston Texans) by getting his head bashed in every time he drops back.;
(5) Some other reason?
Barkley is a great rb who'd be good for a team that pretty much had a offense that is pretty much stable (ol, qb)
Everyone says, when time comes for eli to leave, no problem just draft a qb or trade for one like they're a dime a dozen like rbs.
2020 may be next good class for QBs but I fear they missed out this past draft on the qb..I fear we'll be looking at another Dave brown , kent Graham era coming which we'll be pointing to as holding this team back for doing some things great.
Quote:
In comment 14082836 Gman11 said:
Quote:
drafted Darnold then they would still have a crappy offensive line, their main running back would be a mid-round draft pick (Gallman) and Eli would still be the starting QB.
So, tell me how drafting a QB would have helped them this year.
It’s not about this year. This year was never going to be good. I’d rather be 0-2 (en route to 0-7) with all these problems and Gallman as RB1 and Darnold waiting in the wings.
Which is why I’d probably feel better if the NYG were the Cards. They’re arguably the worst team in the nfl, but they have their future QB already on the roster. That also means they won’t panic and reach for an inferior QB prospect next April which is my concern for the NYG.
They don't know they have their future QB on the roster. Its all speculation at this point. Pro QB guys always take it for granted that all these guys are franchise QB's when history shows only 1 will be.
But based on what has happened so far, how much better would we be had we taken Nelson at no. 2 and Hernandez in the same spot that we took him.
It has proved once again that it does not matter if you have the greatest QB in the world or the greatest WR or TE, if you cannot block up front it means nothing.
Football has always started on the offensive and defensive lines and that does not change. If you can't block, forget it. Right now, our skill players are being wasted and we have wasted the past six years of a HOF quarterback.
Unless this gets better quickly, I cannot see Eli making it to October.
+1
How can one watch the past two games, see the talent that Barkley has and go on unhinged rants that he's not the right pick?
And in doing so, why is this being debated strictly as Barkley vs. a QB?
If you are concerned after the 1st two games, the real issue is still the OL. So if you really want to debate the pick, it isn't Barkley vs. Darnold. It is Barkley vs. trading down to amass a bunch of picks to be used on the OL.
It is a fucking joke at this point. "Win now" should become a billboard hoisted over every fucking chucklehead who can't get past the fact we didn't pick a QB. Doesn't mean shit, but a truckload of people keep using it as some fucking mantra.
What sick post...period
Wasn't there last draft.
This is why I HATED Gettleman's dismissive attitude towards positional value. Sure, things COULD work out his way and Barkley has a Tomlinson-like career where he's dominant for a long time. That's not a high-percentage play, though, and given the situation this team faces right now, I think there's a very good possibility that Barkley's timeline just does not match up very well with the Giants' timeline.
in fact, just last week a poster reiterated that if Barkley is a HoF player and Darnold is simply an average QB, then Barkley was 100% the wrong pick. Logic hasn't been very prevalent on BBI in quite some time.
Saquon has the 6th highest cap hit for a RB. That’s not a good way to rebuild. You want RBs on the cheap.
Not entertaining trade down offers is GM malpractice. What if the Jets would have offered #3 and 2019 #1? You could’ve gotten saquon at lower cap hit and future assets.
Trading away picks for Ogletree was short sighted.
Using 3rd rounder next year in supplemental draft was insane.
Did i mention the team is in a terrible cap situation?
Gettleman makes Phil Jackson look like a good GM.
For once, I agree with you. Nelson probably was the best pick for this team at this time.
At some point we have to come to the realization that the Giants don't know what the fuck they're doing, and they haven't for some time now. In fact, it's very likely that the only thing that kept them competitive was Eli in his prime, and that with age and the beatings that prime window closed a lot sooner than we expected.
Yeah...there have been so many things that've happened over the past 3 or 4 years with this organization that leave me wondering if Mara really has any idea what he's doing.
Quote:
So Darnold can take the team to multiple championship games and be the wrong pick, but Barkley can continue a sub 4.0 YPC and have been the right pick.
in fact, just last week a poster reiterated that if Barkley is a HoF player and Darnold is simply an average QB, then Barkley was 100% the wrong pick. Logic hasn't been very prevalent on BBI in quite some time.
They don't look at it that way Fats. They are right and the only pick was a QB and everything else is background noise. It is a common theme....
So Darnold can take the team to multiple championship games and be the wrong pick, but Barkley can continue a sub 4.0 YPC and have been the right pick.
What exactly are we trying to do, here? Isn't the goal to win football games?
They could have picked the best defensive player on the board and built a solid D that could have made the Giants a tough out while they got their offensive shit together. Instead, they got another expensive skill position piece we can't use this year.
Mark Sanchez took his team to two championship games also. If you told anyone before the draft that Sam Darnold would be the next Mark Sanchez, passing on him was absolutely the right move.
The problem with the OP was the assumption that Darnold is a franchise QB because of the hype going into the draft. If history has shown anything, QBs projected to go at the top of the draft are not all sure things.
It is not like we traded off and lost a chance at a top QB, as it looks like we are going to get another high pick this year!
A few things to add:
Saquon has the 6th highest cap hit for a RB. That’s not a good way to rebuild. You want RBs on the cheap.
****you want all players cheap, but the great ones cost $$$
Not entertaining trade down offers is GM malpractice. What if the Jets would have offered #3 and 2019 #1? You could’ve gotten saquon at lower cap hit and future assets.
****not if the player you want is there and the Jets already said they would not trade with the Giants
Trading away picks for Ogletree was short sighted.
**** a 4th rounder for a starter????
Using 3rd rounder next year in supplemental draft was insane.
**** maybe so, but it is one less CB they need to draft next year and a highly rated one too
Did i mention the team is in a terrible cap situation?
****team is not in terrible cap situation
Gettleman makes Phil Jackson look like a good GM.
*****ask the LA Lakers how bad Phil was. difference is the Knicks and Dolan are a joke
Fix the OL next off season via draft and free agency.
See during the preseason (or maybe during garbage time this year) a little of what you have with Lauletta (sp).
Draft another 3rd or 4th round QB if a 1st or 2nd round talent drops.
I think the 2020 season will likely be a strike year. I suspect Eli hangs it up after the 2019 season. Go with a QB from 2018 (Lauletta), 2019 (draft pick) or 2020 (draft pick).
As disgusted by the OL performance are all are, it doesn't seem like they were PHYSICALLY outmatched. When I look at the parts, (other than Flowers), there is NO reason that this line can't become serviceable. Solder and Omameh have, at least been serviceable before. Hernandez is a highly thought of rookie, he should improve with snaps. Center is a problem, but at Greco and Pulley have been at least serviceable in the past. Better coaching and time should yield better results.
Quote:
“If you have to try to make yourself fall in love with a player, it’s wrong. You will never be happy with the pick. You shouldn’t have to talk yourself into a guy.’’
Gettleman was well aware of the pressure on the #2 pick. He looked to trade down but the offers sucked (his hot dogs and pretzels comment).
So you are left with making a pick that you want to be sure you hit on. And as I said on the thread the other day, my preference was to pick a QB and set up a Mahomes situation where they would sit behind Eli for one year and take over in 2019. However, the scouts were all lukewarm on these QBs. There was no automatic guy that was a clear franchise QB in the vein of Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck coming out. They had talent but had enough blemishes to be worried.
Gettleman simply wouldn't accept that risk with a prospect like Barkley staring him in the face. And yes, I think the love affair with Eli after last years debacle weighed in that the Giants convinced themselves that Eli wasn't done and had another couple of years in him to allow them to keep searching.
Ultimately, in a game of risk management, they banked on the fact that Barkley was a sure thing who will produce for 5-8 years at a high level. And that level is at Hall of Fame quality. They didn't feel the same way about Darnold or Rosen or any of the QBs. And to miss at QB at the #2 pick would cripple the franchise.
And,since DG believed that,he was right in making the pick he did. I think the question that many of us have asked ourselves is if DG was not the GM & they had hired someone else, would we have drafted a QB? I was a QB guy since last year & thought it was a done deal,considering we had a 37 year old QB. That being said,I agree Barkley was the best player in the draft but now looking at our line play, the question will be that by the time we have a team ready to compete for the Super Bowl,will Barkley's best years be behind him? I don't know that answer but I hope as Springsteen says in Rosalita "Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny!"
And before you say "well, he could sit for a year behind Eli"...
Bullsh-t. After this 0-2 start you'd all be clamoring for him to start this week. You'd throw him out to the wolves because you want what you want and you WANT IT NOW!
There are a lot of ways to build a team. Dave Gettleman's philosophy is run the ball, rush the passer, and control the LOS. He's trying to build the team that way, and it's not wrong just because it's not what YOU want.
There are 33 new players on this team. It's going to take time, and you're not willing to give it any because you wanted a QB. Plain and simple.
Quote:
these days.
So Darnold can take the team to multiple championship games and be the wrong pick, but Barkley can continue a sub 4.0 YPC and have been the right pick.
What exactly are we trying to do, here? Isn't the goal to win football games?
They could have picked the best defensive player on the board and built a solid D that could have made the Giants a tough out while they got their offensive shit together. Instead, they got another expensive skill position piece we can't use this year.
Mark Sanchez took his team to two championship games also. If you told anyone before the draft that Sam Darnold would be the next Mark Sanchez, passing on him was absolutely the right move.
The problem with the OP was the assumption that Darnold is a franchise QB because of the hype going into the draft. If history has shown anything, QBs projected to go at the top of the draft are not all sure things.
Again, in an attempt to coddle ourselves we're beating the shit out of anything resembling sound logic.
We can't draft Mark Sanchez, that happened already. But what has been said is that the guy drafted could go to two championship games and have been the wrong pick. Think about that sentence again for a minute or two before you reply, just to see how stupid it sounds.
Then, the 'what about the risk!' point about drafting QBs high, as if drafting a RB high is some guarantee for success.
For starters, we had a completely dysfunctional offense with a putrid OL, one where we had to know adding a RB wasn't going to magically make anything better.
Then there's the fact that RBs bust as well - just take a look back at Reggie Bush and see how silly that selection was in the same spot. Another guy everyone figured couldn't miss.
And that's before you get into how much more likely you are to find a star RB later in the draft than you are a QB or DE. We're torturing logic here, and it's sad.
You can tell me what I would say all you want. Wouldn't make it right. I would have been fine with Darnold sitting behind Eli for a year or two. It worked out pretty well for Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers.
Quote:
Bullsh-t. After this 0-2 start you'd all be clamoring for him to start this week. You'd throw him out to the wolves because you want what you want and you WANT IT NOW!
You can tell me what I would say all you want. Wouldn't make it right. I would have been fine with Darnold sitting behind Eli for a year or two. It worked out pretty well for Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers.
I would have been fine with it too. Said so. But the majority of this board, which is a microcosm of the general fan, would not have. And it's been more than obvious.
Quote:
Bullsh-t. After this 0-2 start you'd all be clamoring for him to start this week. You'd throw him out to the wolves because you want what you want and you WANT IT NOW!
You can tell me what I would say all you want. Wouldn't make it right. I would have been fine with Darnold sitting behind Eli for a year or two. It worked out pretty well for Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers.
And more recently, Pat Mahomes and Alex Smith.
For some reason, people refuse to accept the fact that at some point we would eventually move on from Eli, and there would be a transition period. I'm not sure why everyone thinks that fans would just instantly expect a cutover and a winner right away. That's the excuse shit teams use when they don't want to rebuild the right way, and I don't think I've seen the fan reactions to support it.
Quote:
Mark Sanchez took his team to two championship games also. If you told anyone before the draft that Sam Darnold would be the next Mark Sanchez, passing on him was absolutely the right move.
Again, in an attempt to coddle ourselves we're beating the shit out of anything resembling sound logic.
We can't draft Mark Sanchez, that happened already. But what has been said is that the guy drafted could go to two championship games and have been the wrong pick. Think about that sentence again for a minute or two before you reply, just to see how stupid it sounds.
Seems to me you are so deep in your thought process, that you cannot see that Sanchez did exactly what you said (take the team to two AFC Championship games) and he was not the right pick..and neither was Kaepernick who was even better.
It is a perfectly logical response. You just don't want to accept it. Sanchez went to two AFC championship games and then busted.
Kaep did the same (or was it two and a Super Bowl) and busted.
Now Darnold is likely better than both of them, but he is with the Jets.....
And I will also be clear, I said a trillion times in the lead up to the draft that I (Eli's biggest fanboy) would be fine taking a QB as long as the front office believed in the guy. I also threw out the "let Eli play out his contract while we develop the new guy ala Rivers and Rodgers".
Didn't happen. Oh well. Happy with Barkley who will also help whoever the next QB is, eventually.
Not trading up for Jack Conklin
Instead, let's stick to Sanchez - who, let's be perfectly clear - if we were to select a guy who took us to 2 AFCCs, we'd be hard pressed to find anyone calling him a bad selection. Same with Kaepernick.
If you win with the guy, you made the right move. Barkley right now seems like a lot of potential that we can't collect on because the offense is a giant pile of shit. What was the point to selecting him if that continues to remain the case, as this was supposed to be a multi-year work in progress?
You just boil it down to pure value - getting the most production over the longest amount of time. And RBs just don't give you that. Sure, once in a while a few do, but that is against the odds.
If the RB you take is a sensation - and let's assume Barkley is - then what you are going to have to pay on the second contract is really not worth it. Because you have to start worrying about diminishing returns accelerating at that point.
It's just poor management.
I would have been fine with QB, Barkley, or Nelson.
A running back rarely is ever the right pick for a team that early in the draft. Simply because a running back likely isn’t the reason they were directing that high to begin with.
You just boil it down to pure value - getting the most production over the longest amount of time. And RBs just don't give you that. Sure, once in a while a few do, but that is against the odds.
If the RB you take is a sensation - and let's assume Barkley is - then what you are going to have to pay on the second contract is really not worth it. Because you have to start worrying about diminishing returns accelerating at that point.
It's just poor management.
That's an additional factor.
But, once again, the main point is that when you're picking number 2 with an aging QB, and there's a potential franchise QB there, you have to take him. There may be no position more important in all of team sports than the QB.
You just boil it down to pure value - getting the most production over the longest amount of time. And RBs just don't give you that. Sure, once in a while a few do, but that is against the odds.
If the RB you take is a sensation - and let's assume Barkley is - then what you are going to have to pay on the second contract is really not worth it. Because you have to start worrying about diminishing returns accelerating at that point.
It's just poor management.
100% my position as well. I'd never pick an RB that high except in a situation where there's a ton of young talent throughout the roster but the team was still bad because they hadn't put it together yet, a la Jacksonville a few years ago.
Of course, we need plenty of other positions as well, and we had one first round pick. If Darnold was sitting behind Eli and we were trotting Gallman and Stewart out there at RB, all of BBI would have said we should have drafted Barkley.
I would have been fine with QB, Barkley, or Nelson.
Says the guy who has insisted that Giants fans would not accept a rookie QB sitting for any period of time, when that's exactly what they did with Eli at the start of his career.
Has nothing to do with bitterness - has to do with the extended ineptitude of this franchise to figure out any kind of strategy, short or long term, since 2011.
Quote:
taking ANY RB at #2 was/is galactically stupid.
You just boil it down to pure value - getting the most production over the longest amount of time. And RBs just don't give you that. Sure, once in a while a few do, but that is against the odds.
If the RB you take is a sensation - and let's assume Barkley is - then what you are going to have to pay on the second contract is really not worth it. Because you have to start worrying about diminishing returns accelerating at that point.
It's just poor management.
100% my position as well. I'd never pick an RB that high except in a situation where there's a ton of young talent throughout the roster but the team was still bad because they hadn't put it together yet, a la Jacksonville a few years ago.
Precisely. And the same folks who nearly shit themselves about wasting a year of a cost controlled QB sitting on the bench behind Eli somehow ignore that when they whistle past the graveyard declaring how Gettleman knew this was a rebuild year and wasn't going to get anything from it. If that's the case, then spending that same money on a RB who will likely have a shorter lifespan is even more egregious.
Quote:
were the close minded ones who could not accept that the pick would be anything other than QB. And there are more than a few, and they clearly still have not accepted it or gotten over it.
I would have been fine with QB, Barkley, or Nelson.
Says the guy who has insisted that Giants fans would not accept a rookie QB sitting for any period of time, when that's exactly what they did with Eli at the start of his career.
Has nothing to do with bitterness - has to do with the extended ineptitude of this franchise to figure out any kind of strategy, short or long term, since 2011.
You think Giants fans, particularly this board, would not have called for Darnold to start at all this season? You think they have patience? We're already calling Saquon Barkley a bad pick after 2 games. You give them more credit than I do. Do you read this forum often?
All I heard last season was "rookie QB's don't sit anymore" when I said if we drafted one he should sit behind Eli.
BBI: The king of moving goalposts.
This is exactly the opposite of what an NFL franchise should be think. Running back is the most replaceable position in the sport, qb is the hardest to fill with a truly competent franchise changing player. What exactly have Alex Smith and Case Keenum won, heck outside of one year Case Keenum is a career backup? Wow, is this just all kinds of backwards.
Quote:
drafted Darnold then they would still have a crappy offensive line, their main running back would be a mid-round draft pick (Gallman) and Eli would still be the starting QB.
So, tell me how drafting a QB would have helped them this year.
It’s not about this year. This year was never going to be good. I’d rather be 0-2 (en route to 0-7) with all these problems and Gallman as RB1 and Darnold waiting in the wings.
Exactly. I am not sure why people are saying we would still suck with Darnold. We know that. Those of us that were screaming draft a QB in April wanted this team to do the right thing and completely rebuild the roster from the ground up instead of continuing with the half measure/band aid approach.
I've never seen so much handwringing over drafting the consensus best player in the entire draft, before.
Again, though, while I can't speak for everyone I can say that my gripe wasn't that they didn't pick a QB, although I would have been fine with that. It's that an RB is almost always a poor value pick that high in the draft because a)their prime years tend to be short b)the league is littered with excellent RBs drafted in later rounds. And, in the Giants' particular case, an elite RB is wasted when the OL is so bad. RBs almost never improve with age, so right now they're wasting what should be one of Barkley's best seasons. In 3 or 4 years, maybe they've fixed the OL by then, but given the career trajectory of most backs there's a pretty good chance he won't be as good then as he is right now. That's generally not the case with other positions.
Did that 50% want to throw Webb out there in an attempt to win, or were they looking to see if the guy showed any signs of life before a QB heavy draft that we might consider taking a QB in?
People wanted Webb in there for evaluation purposes, specifically after the season had already circled the toilet.
Quote:
In comment 14083070 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
were the close minded ones who could not accept that the pick would be anything other than QB. And there are more than a few, and they clearly still have not accepted it or gotten over it.
I would have been fine with QB, Barkley, or Nelson.
Says the guy who has insisted that Giants fans would not accept a rookie QB sitting for any period of time, when that's exactly what they did with Eli at the start of his career.
Has nothing to do with bitterness - has to do with the extended ineptitude of this franchise to figure out any kind of strategy, short or long term, since 2011.
You think Giants fans, particularly this board, would not have called for Darnold to start at all this season? You think they have patience? We're already calling Saquon Barkley a bad pick after 2 games. You give them more credit than I do. Do you read this forum often?
All I heard last season was "rookie QB's don't sit anymore" when I said if we drafted one he should sit behind Eli.
BBI: The king of moving goalposts.
Some may have said that. But that's untrue. See Pat Mahomes.
Yeah the Browns and they took a QB no one here wanted so that’s kind of a moot point
C'mon Greg. Every analyst out there said Barkley was the best player in the draft. Just because the Browns didn't pick him didn't change that opinion.
Are you saying that because Mayfield went number one he was the consensus best player?
we turned over the majority of the roster. switched to a 3-4 D and brought in LB's. Have an entirely new OL (position wise). Have a different RB. New coach and new GM
But since we have the same QB it was a half-measure and a band aid?
Do you people really believe the horseshit you type?
I love Barkley. I think he is a generational talent. I don't think anyone can say it was the wrong or right pick, but given the info you have at that time, Barkley was considered a can't miss, and I tend to agree with that.
Personally, if it were me, I probably would have picked Nelson first, then maybe Hernandez next like they did, but can you take a guard with the #2 overall pick? What if he busts? There are so many needs on the team that it was impossible to cover everything in the draft.
Barkley will be the reason why the Giants will actually be in a few games this season. With an upgrade at QB, and 2 more quality offensive lineman, this is a completely different team on the offensive side of the ball. There are plenty of skill position weapons to build around who are young. Yes, you usually build inside out, but the Giants are not as far off as it seems. This is a 2 year project. Hernandez and Solder are upgrades. Hernandez will settle in. The rest of the line will be replaced next season. Finding a QB is always the challenge for every team. If we don't find one, we will be questioning the pick for years to come (assuming Darnold or Rosen work out).
So I guess the answer to whether or not Barkley was the right pick is all dependent on whether Lauletta is the guy, or a QB coming out in 2019 is the answer.
LOL, okay dude.
Instead, let's stick to Sanchez - who, let's be perfectly clear - if we were to select a guy who took us to 2 AFCCs, we'd be hard pressed to find anyone calling him a bad selection. Same with Kaepernick.
If you win with the guy, you made the right move. Barkley right now seems like a lot of potential that we can't collect on because the offense is a giant pile of shit. What was the point to selecting him if that continues to remain the case, as this was supposed to be a multi-year work in progress?
First you logic in the last sentence alone defeats your case. What would any QB do with this line besides become the next David Carr...
Reggie Bush was a bust before the draft. I cannot understand what anybody saw in him. He was too small to be a top choice. You cannot compare Reggie Bush to Barkley on the physical component alone,let alone talent level. Trent Richardson would be a better comparison(physically), but who was the last Alabama RB to be good?
And Sanchez was a bad pick...Kaep was ok by me, much better choice than Sanchez.
I would normally agree that a QB is the better choice, but Barkley is not on the same level as the usual RB. He had higher measurables than Gurly and Elliott..and I did not like Darnold because of the turnovers and drop in performance 2016 to 2017...
Back in the day Mara used Street and Smith to draft from ..
Semantics. 99% of analysts felt Barkley was the best player in the draft and the best prospect in years. When was the last time the Browns got a QB pick right?
Imo, I think Mara would have been fine with letting Eli leave and hook up with Jax, for example. Shurmur comes in, is asked to evaluate Eli objectively (Mara’s love for Eli would be far too biased) and he felt Eli still had the physical tools.
Shurmur then obviously watched extensive film on the projected QBs in the draft and concluded that they were not SPECIAL enough to project as franchise-caliber. Given his ability to have developed QBs in the past, his expertise (along with scouting reports and consultations with the scouts themselves) was valued and, imo, appropriately followed.
Again, time will tell (and certainly not after just 2 games or even a year or two) if he and DG were right
And we would still be 0-2.
Until there is viable alternative AND conviction to replace Eli this is what we have for the remainder of the year.
Lets check back in next April and we can talk about who we should draft next...
Been a bad run of football, for sure. Hard to watch on Sunday. But, I for one am going to give these guys more than two games. Probably a few seasons, actually.
Quote:
You don't even want to hear Reggie Bush's name.
Instead, let's stick to Sanchez - who, let's be perfectly clear - if we were to select a guy who took us to 2 AFCCs, we'd be hard pressed to find anyone calling him a bad selection. Same with Kaepernick.
If you win with the guy, you made the right move. Barkley right now seems like a lot of potential that we can't collect on because the offense is a giant pile of shit. What was the point to selecting him if that continues to remain the case, as this was supposed to be a multi-year work in progress?
First you logic in the last sentence alone defeats your case. What would any QB do with this line besides become the next David Carr...
Reggie Bush was a bust before the draft. I cannot understand what anybody saw in him. He was too small to be a top choice. You cannot compare Reggie Bush to Barkley on the physical component alone,let alone talent level. Trent Richardson would be a better comparison(physically), but who was the last Alabama RB to be good?
And Sanchez was a bad pick...Kaep was ok by me, much better choice than Sanchez.
I would normally agree that a QB is the better choice, but Barkley is not on the same level as the usual RB. He had higher measurables than Gurly and Elliott..and I did not like Darnold because of the turnovers and drop in performance 2016 to 2017...
And yet, there were a ton of people who thought Reggie Bush was the best player in that draft. Casserly didn't, selected Mario Williams instead, and despite paying for it with his job it was the right move.
As for what would the QB do behind this line - well, what is Barkley doing so far?
If the Giants were so convinced this was a train wreck of an offensive line, selecting a RB makes even less sense. They don't last as long, and they can't be productive with no blocking in front of them, similar to a RB. At that point, with no consensus on a QB, they should have turned to pass rushing DE, another difficult to fill position that usually has to get drafted high, and that in most cases can have a pretty lengthy career.
For argument's sake, let's put the Giants, Saints, Patriots, Chargers and Steelers all in the same category. That is to say, all have SB winning, or franchise (sorry Chargers) QBs who are most likely nearing the end.
The Pats traded away Jimmy G.
The Steelers are doing just about the same, if not less, planning for their future than NYG, and that's with Ben talking retirement every year.
New Orleans traded a 3rd for Teddy B with one year left on his deal, after already trading this coming year's 1st for a pass rusher.
The Chargers, even with all the winning Phil Rivers has been doing lately (no playoffs since 2013), what exactly is their plan when he hangs em up?
Now I understand the argument is, well, those teams weren't sitting near the top of the draft. I get it, and it's fair. But, every single one of those franchises passed on Lamar Jackson, and in the Patriots case, passed twice. Jackson had gotten a ton of praise by scouts and even here on BBI as maybe the forgotten QB of this class and absolutely on the level as the others.
The Chargers and even the Patriots with multiple firsts were very much in striking distance of Rosen after he dropped down to 10.
For all the bitching about NYG being careless, having no future, etc. You can argue that they've actually been doing more than the teams that are in the most similar situation as they are. Also, while not applicable to the DG/PS regime, NYG was reported to be very heavily interested in Mahomes in 2017 round 1 before settling for Webb in round 3, so it's not as if ownership is walking on eggshells around Manning.
And a couple of other things. If you're calling a positive 2016 "flukey" then you can also turn around and say a negative 2015 was also "flukey" as they lost a bunch of games they should have won, enough to make the playoffs even. Eli's 2016 season was also more than fine by any measure. He put this team in position to win a playoff game that year, others did not do the same for themselves.
For argument's sake, let's put the Giants, Saints, Patriots, Chargers and Steelers all in the same category. That is to say, all have SB winning, or franchise (sorry Chargers) QBs who are most likely nearing the end.
The Pats traded away Jimmy G.
The Steelers are doing just about the same, if not less, planning for their future than NYG, and that's with Ben talking retirement every year.
New Orleans traded a 3rd for Teddy B with one year left on his deal, after already trading this coming year's 1st for a pass rusher.
The Chargers, even with all the winning Phil Rivers has been doing lately (no playoffs since 2013), what exactly is their plan when he hangs em up?
Now I understand the argument is, well, those teams weren't sitting near the top of the draft. I get it, and it's fair. But, every single one of those franchises passed on Lamar Jackson, and in the Patriots case, passed twice. Jackson had gotten a ton of praise by scouts and even here on BBI as maybe the forgotten QB of this class and absolutely on the level as the others.
The Chargers and even the Patriots with multiple firsts were very much in striking distance of Rosen after he dropped down to 10.
For all the bitching about NYG being careless, having no future, etc. You can argue that they've actually been doing more than the teams that are in the most similar situation as they are. Also, while not applicable to the DG/PS regime, NYG was reported to be very heavily interested in Mahomes in 2017 round 1 before settling for Webb in round 3, so it's not as if ownership is walking on eggshells around Manning.
And a couple of other things. If you're calling a positive 2016 "flukey" then you can also turn around and say a negative 2015 was also "flukey" as they lost a bunch of games they should have won, enough to make the playoffs even. Eli's 2016 season was also more than fine by any measure. He put this team in position to win a playoff game that year, others did not do the same for themselves.
Nice work
that was to determine whether he showed enough to be the QB of the future. Its called preparing for the future and self-evaluating.
For argument's sake, let's put the Giants, Saints, Patriots, Chargers and Steelers all in the same category. That is to say, all have SB winning, or franchise (sorry Chargers) QBs who are most likely nearing the end.
The Pats traded away Jimmy G.
The Steelers are doing just about the same, if not less, planning for their future than NYG, and that's with Ben talking retirement every year.
New Orleans traded a 3rd for Teddy B with one year left on his deal, after already trading this coming year's 1st for a pass rusher.
The Chargers, even with all the winning Phil Rivers has been doing lately (no playoffs since 2013), what exactly is their plan when he hangs em up?
Now I understand the argument is, well, those teams weren't sitting near the top of the draft. I get it, and it's fair. But, every single one of those franchises passed on Lamar Jackson, and in the Patriots case, passed twice. Jackson had gotten a ton of praise by scouts and even here on BBI as maybe the forgotten QB of this class and absolutely on the level as the others.
The Chargers and even the Patriots with multiple firsts were very much in striking distance of Rosen after he dropped down to 10.
For all the bitching about NYG being careless, having no future, etc. You can argue that they've actually been doing more than the teams that are in the most similar situation as they are. Also, while not applicable to the DG/PS regime, NYG was reported to be very heavily interested in Mahomes in 2017 round 1 before settling for Webb in round 3, so it's not as if ownership is walking on eggshells around Manning.
And a couple of other things. If you're calling a positive 2016 "flukey" then you can also turn around and say a negative 2015 was also "flukey" as they lost a bunch of games they should have won, enough to make the playoffs even. Eli's 2016 season was also more than fine by any measure. He put this team in position to win a playoff game that year, others did not do the same for themselves.
Very good post. The belief that the next franchise QB is as easy as selecting him at #2 is a faulty decision point that many are making.
Simply put, taking the best player available may not always be the best pick, but it is really difficult to say it is the wrong pick.
Imo, I think Mara would have been fine with letting Eli leave and hook up with Jax, for example. Shurmur comes in, is asked to evaluate Eli objectively (Mara’s love for Eli would be far too biased) and he felt Eli still had the physical tools.
Shurmur then obviously watched extensive film on the projected QBs in the draft and concluded that they were not SPECIAL enough to project as franchise-caliber. Given his ability to have developed QBs in the past, his expertise (along with scouting reports and consultations with the scouts themselves) was valued and, imo, appropriately followed.
Again, time will tell (and certainly not after just 2 games or even a year or two) if he and DG were right
I personally think you're giving Mara too much credit. I think those questions were asked to DG and Shurmur BEFORE they were hired and they were hired because of the answers they gave him (That Eli could still play and they can still win with him). And let's not forget Accorsi was involved in Gettleman's hiring. What's Accorsi's legacy again?
Just my opinion.
Quote:
try to say this for the last time:
Imo, I think Mara would have been fine with letting Eli leave and hook up with Jax, for example. Shurmur comes in, is asked to evaluate Eli objectively (Mara’s love for Eli would be far too biased) and he felt Eli still had the physical tools.
Shurmur then obviously watched extensive film on the projected QBs in the draft and concluded that they were not SPECIAL enough to project as franchise-caliber. Given his ability to have developed QBs in the past, his expertise (along with scouting reports and consultations with the scouts themselves) was valued and, imo, appropriately followed.
Again, time will tell (and certainly not after just 2 games or even a year or two) if he and DG were right
I personally think you're giving Mara too much credit. I think those questions were asked to DG and Shurmur BEFORE they were hired and they were hired because of the answers they gave him (That Eli could still play and they can still win with him). And let's not forget Accorsi was involved in Gettleman's hiring. What's Accorsi's legacy again?
Just my opinion.
I may be. Simply my take
Quote:
despite every indication he wasn't ready. And that was before we knew he sucked.
that was to determine whether he showed enough to be the QB of the future. Its called preparing for the future and self-evaluating.
At what expense? What if he was the QB of the future? You're going to throw him out there in that situation to prove it? You'd get the guy killed.
He was drafted as a two to three year project. Jerry Reese's words.
HE WASN'T READY! It's more than crystal clear at this point. They had seen what they needed to see in practice to determine that. He was never even elevated to 2nd team.
For argument's sake, let's put the Giants, Saints, Patriots, Chargers and Steelers all in the same category. That is to say, all have SB winning, or franchise (sorry Chargers) QBs who are most likely nearing the end.
The Pats traded away Jimmy G.
The Steelers are doing just about the same, if not less, planning for their future than NYG, and that's with Ben talking retirement every year.
New Orleans traded a 3rd for Teddy B with one year left on his deal, after already trading this coming year's 1st for a pass rusher.
The Chargers, even with all the winning Phil Rivers has been doing lately (no playoffs since 2013), what exactly is their plan when he hangs em up?
Belichick has taken a ton of shit for trading JG - and he's fucking BELICHICK.
The Chargers? Is that the sterling example we want to compare ourselves with?
That leaves the Saints and Steelers. The Saints traded for Bridgewater - who will be a FA at season's end, but could just as easily end up extending him. The Steelers nabbed MR, who looked good in preseason action. Further, both of these teams currently have functional offenses. We don't.
It would have made the hurricane surrounding Eli's benching look like a sneeze by comparison. There's no way that Mara, Shurmur, or Gettleman wanted anything to do with this, especially since they felt Eli was the right guy to deal with the entirely reconstructed OL.
It would have made the hurricane surrounding Eli's benching look like a sneeze by comparison. There's no way that Mara, Shurmur, or Gettleman wanted anything to do with this, especially since they felt Eli was the right guy to deal with the entirely reconstructed OL.
If they're making picks based on what the media will say then we're in more trouble than I thought.
In doing so, they allowed Shurmur to fully evaluate Webb. Ok, they let Webb go, but that was very smart to do your due diligence there.
They still have Kyle Lauletta who showed us some things in the preseason.
They still have all of their draft picks.
Look, if it was up to me, I probably would have gone with Wilks when this process started. I didn't trust that Shurmur's first HC experience could totally be blamed on "Cleveland". If it had been Wilks, I would have placed more emphasis on drafting the QB as we would have hired a defensive mind.
Once Shurmur was brought in, I really came around to the idea, and I think most of it was seeing what he had done for Case Keenum. That kind of takes you away from the idea that you need the highly touted QBs with the high bust potential, when the best player to come out of the draft in the last 25 years is staring you in the face.
The short term "bonus" if you will would be if Shurmur could get Eli back on track. That of course goes hand in hand with this offensive line that so far has not held up its end of the bargain.
Longer term, the plan at QB is Kyle Lauletta and/or any other future draft pick or FA pickup and Shurmur's ability to develop them. To me, even more than usual with other head coaches, Shurmur's success here will be directly measured by his ability to find/develop the next guy.
1. Finding a running back in the draft is easier than perhaps any other position
2. Finding a franchise QB in the draft is exceptionally difficult and can take years or even decades
3. There were 6 or 7 blue chip prospects in this draft: Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson
After the draft, those previously accepted truths were frequently challenged by BBIers that wanted to talk themselves into Barkley being the right pick.
Now, another piece of history: since we drafted Odell Beckham we have averaged 21 PPG (less now after these first two games). I know Beckham is the most popular Giant player, but he has been a gloss of paint on a blasted out shell of an offense. That isn't me disliking his personality, and it isn't me going on about the salary cap. It is a fact.
The front office didn't seem to appreciate that fact when they used the most important pick in 14 years on another gloss of paint. I know Gettleman just got here, and Barkley absolutely looks like a wonderful player and a great kid, but drafting him over the next franchise QB was a disastrous error. We will continue to be the same poor offense we've been for many years because we haven't addressed the true nature of our problems.
I'd say it is a fireable mistake, but I'm convinced ownership either mandated keeping Eli when they hired Gettleman, or they hired Gettleman because he said he'd keep Eli.
The Giants have no idea what they're doing and anyone defending what they've done the past 6 years is just a loyal homer. Nothing wrong with that but facts make you look foolish.
No team has started 0-2 five of the past six years except the Giants even the Browns. The Giants have won 3 of their last 19 games. They haven't scored 30 points since 2015. There's no defense for this. We're talking 3 head coaches and 2 GM's and almost all new players and it keeps getting worse not better.
1. Finding a running back in the draft is easier than perhaps any other position
2. Finding a franchise QB in the draft is exceptionally difficult and can take years or even decades
3. There were 6 or 7 blue chip prospects in this draft: Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson
After the draft, those previously accepted truths were frequently challenged by BBIers that wanted to talk themselves into Barkley being the right pick.
Now, another piece of history: since we drafted Odell Beckham we have averaged 21 PPG (less now after these first two games). I know Beckham is the most popular Giant player, but he has been a gloss of paint on a blasted out shell of an offense. That isn't me disliking his personality, and it isn't me going on about the salary cap. It is a fact.
The front office didn't seem to appreciate that fact when they used the most important pick in 14 years on another gloss of paint. I know Gettleman just got here, and Barkley absolutely looks like a wonderful player and a great kid, but drafting him over the next franchise QB was a disastrous error. We will continue to be the same poor offense we've been for many years because we haven't addressed the true nature of our problems.
I'd say it is a fireable mistake, but I'm convinced ownership either mandated keeping Eli when they hired Gettleman, or they hired Gettleman because he said he'd keep Eli.
+1
Going one step further to the last sentence of Terps' post. There have been numerous posts two games in that the Giants knew this was going to be a multi-year effort and that the roster needed to be completely overhauled.
If that's the case, then it just makes the decision to pass on a QB or DE that much worse. I don't believe that to be true; I think the Giants thought they'd be competitive this year and right back in it next, which is why they decided they had enough runway left in Eli's career to bypass a QB. That bit of self-evaluation is the most concerning to me, TBH.
Two games into a season with a roster still badly in need of talent everywhere is way too soon to hit the panic button.
Hang in there, this is going to take time. I have concerns about DG and his outdated thinking, and if we're right about it, this is going to take longer than that to fix. Hiring DG will have been the root mistake ...
This was my opinion, but I like Barkley as well since it is obvious to me that we are picking pretty high up this year as well.
Quote:
was the best player in the draft. It's never wrong to go BPA.
I've never seen so much handwringing over drafting the consensus best player in the entire draft, before.
Great - he was the best college player in the draft and the best prospect (I don't agree, but let's use that as the baseline).
But that doesn't change the dynamic that this best player/prospect is a RB. So that changes this best players value immensely. By nature of his position, he has the biggest, quickest downside.
Okay, maybe I get 4-5 great years - tops. Meanwhile, with a QB I potentially get 10+. The most critical in the game; and while I have a 37 year old QB who looks like he just saw ghost.
I could do the same thought on a DE, OL, maybe a corner.
It's really a math problem. And taking a RB doesn't solve that problem...
If the Giants drafted Darnold, he would be out of the league or injured by 2023. It doesn't matter who you are lining up back there if there is no protection.
The Giants knew they could not turn this horrible roster into one that could compete for a championship the following year. Too many holes to fill and not enough money or available talent to do it.
Their only move here was to do what they did this off season.
1. Addressed (whether effective or not) the OL with Solder and Hernandez.
2. Drafted an exciting RB. We know fans like shiny objects.
3. Signed OBJ who is also an untouchable fan favorite.
4. Showed a commitment to Eli both in their actions and verbally. Very important to the fans.
These decisions also made the most sense to help the team THIS year. Up until Sunday night, fans still had hope.
Barkley was the safe pick.
I do believe Barkley will be great, but I don't think it will translate into much difference as far as wins and losses go.
The possibility is also there that Barkley won't live up the hype. We all (myself included) act like it would be impossible for him to be a bust, but it's still a possibility. Trent Richardson was not as highly thought of but no one thought he would bust and he did.
I thought he would bust and said so at the time. Alabama that year had the best OL in the country and was opening up highways for Richardson to run through. Richardson showed me nothing in terms of his game translating. In fact, I openly mocked a draft publication on twitter for calling him the next Adrian Peterson.
The truth is that Reese left this franchise with total crap on the OL. Even had the Giants picked Darnold, you are looking at a multi-year rebuild of the OL.
If the Giants had taken Darnold then this board would be hot and bothered any time that Barkley had a great game for whatever team drafted him.
And the people screaming for Barkley do not understand that Barkley could be Reggie Bush, Trent Richardson or Cadillac Williams.
That works both ways, there's risk to drafting any position.
Most say Barkley was a great pick given all of the info on the table at the time of the selection. Maybe he won't be as good as advertised, you're right.
On the contrary, the Darnold people have placed this franchise in some nightmare QB hell they've made up in their heads.
So you’re that sure? You know he won’t be the answer. I don’t know. Even Shurmur doesn’t fully know, but He certainly knows more about KL than you or I
Quote:
Those of us that were screaming draft a QB in April wanted this team to do the right thing and completely rebuild the roster from the ground up instead of continuing with the half measure/band aid approach.
we turned over the majority of the roster. switched to a 3-4 D and brought in LB's. Have an entirely new OL (position wise). Have a different RB. New coach and new GM
But since we have the same QB it was a half-measure and a band aid?
Do you people really believe the horseshit you type?
You will never learn how to disagree with someone without being a dbag will you? Yes, everything they did this off-season was yet another attempt to band-aid a contender with Eli again.
New GM? All they did was hire the guy that lost out to Reese in 2007. The team desperately needed an outside perspective on the roster, instead we got Gettleman. But hey, at least the team is working their fannies off.
Way too early to make a call either way.
And you know what? As fans of a franchise, it's okay to debate this. It's okay to look back at watershed moments in the franchise's history and say "they goofed" or "they nailed that one."
A lot of people thought paying a king's ransom for Eli was the wrong move at the time. It was a reasonable position to take, just like thinking they should have taken a QB this year is a reasonable position to take. We had a viable QB in Collins who (like Eli), desperately needed protection. Robert Gallery was the guy a lot of people wanted to help solidify the line. Well, looking back, making the trade and drafting Eli was likely the right call (I suppose you could argue that keeping the draft picks and drafting Roethlisberger instead may have resulted in another championship or two - but come on, who knows).
Seems like there's a good chance we can get our franchise QB next year - in which case we'd have Beckham, Barkley, and a guy who can actually get them the ball. If that happens, we may look back on this year and say drafting Barkley was the right move and that another long season was worth it.
But of course, there looms the possibility that we may regret not drafting Darnold for a long, long time.
Time will tell...
And you know what? As fans of a franchise, it's okay to debate this. It's okay to look back at watershed moments in the franchise's history and say "they goofed" or "they nailed that one."
A lot of people thought paying a king's ransom for Eli was the wrong move at the time. It was a reasonable position to take, just like thinking they should have taken a QB this year is a reasonable position to take. We had a viable QB in Collins who (like Eli), desperately needed protection. Robert Gallery was the guy a lot of people wanted to help solidify the line. Well, looking back, making the trade and drafting Eli was likely the right call (I suppose you could argue that keeping the draft picks and drafting Roethlisberger instead may have resulted in another championship or two - but come on, who knows).
Seems like there's a good chance we can get our franchise QB next year - in which case we'd have Beckham, Barkley, and a guy who can actually get them the ball. If that happens, we may look back on this year and say drafting Barkley was the right move and that another long season was worth it.
But of course, there looms the possibility that we may regret not drafting Darnold for a long, long time.
Time will tell...
Debate is fine, that’s why we’re here, but consider:
1-We all push the SAME narrative ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So, a ludicrous debate
2-We’re all DUG IN with the same narrative. So, a ludicrous debate
3-Is this going to go on every flucking day, every flucking game, all season long? So, still a ludicrous debate. And torturous
4-Will ONE mind, relative to the draft change? So, a ludicrous debate
Saquon Barkley is a HOF talent. He is a once-in-a-generation RB. This is not about one year. And as far as concerns about RB health and career spans, one of the things I love about Barkley is he doesn't take big hits. He knows how to protect himself. Defenders can't square him up because he's so elusive. I fully expect he'll be a force in the NFL for at least 8 years and probably more.
He is 21 years old. I hope he's a Giant for the next 12 years. I hope he breaks Emmitt Smith's rushing record of 18,355 yards. He has the talent and the game to do that.
And he can be part of Super Bowl winning teams. Yes, the Giants still have holes on the roster. That would be true no matter who they picked. Even if they picked Nelson, that wasn't going to fix the line. Solder has struggled, Omameh has been bad, Flowers has been bad, and Hernandez has struggled. The team needs work. They need improvement from the guys that are here and they need new players to fill some holes. A new QB is necessary. Eli is not going to magically turn back into 2011 Eli again. That time is gone. They need another OL, and they need pass rushers.
There will be more good QBs in the draft next year.
But Saquon Barkley was/is a once in a generation talent. When you have a RB breaking the Penn State power clean record, hoisting 405 lbs, and that man squats 495 lbs, and that man puts up OL reps on the bench (29) at the combine of 225 lbs, and that man runs a 4.4 40, and that man verts 41 inches, and that man was a one man scoring machine at PSU...you are dealing with a freak of nature, an otherwordly human being that is a one in a multi-billion (with a B, and not hyperbole) athlete.
If you pass on that individual, when you have your franchise icon entrenched for 2 more years at QB anyway, you are making a mistake. Saquon is going to make believers out of every single one of you.
And yes, they need to fix a lot more on this team. That will come down the road. Until then, enjoy Saquon, because this is the dawn of a player that is going to go down as one of the greatest Giants ever. It's not every year you can draft a guy like that. And keep repeating this statement..."the draft is not about 1 year."
They will get their QB. They will improve the OL. And they will do so with two of the most dynamic offensive weapons in NFL history already in place.
All that said, if they don't get a QB early in the draft next year, I will throw a conniption fit.
Drew Lock, Ryan Finley, perhaps Will Grier...one or more of these guys are going to be franchise QBs, the Giants just need to be in a position to get the right one. And it's a good year for them to be terrible and need a QB. The Broncos are going to win too much and are already 2-0. The Chargers are likely going to win too much as well. The Dolphins have already won 2 games. The Patriots will win too much. The Jets, Bills, Browns, and Texans have already grabbed their franchise QBs and are unlikely to use a high pick on another. The Saints and the Raiders will be potential QB suitors, and the Saints are going to win too much, and the Raiders will probably still have faith in Derek Carr.
There is unlikely to be much competition for the Giants to grab their top guy at QB in the 2019 draft. That should be exciting for us.
And you know what? As fans of a franchise, it's okay to debate this. It's okay to look back at watershed moments in the franchise's history and say "they goofed" or "they nailed that one."
A lot of people thought paying a king's ransom for Eli was the wrong move at the time. It was a reasonable position to take, just like thinking they should have taken a QB this year is a reasonable position to take. We had a viable QB in Collins who (like Eli), desperately needed protection. Robert Gallery was the guy a lot of people wanted to help solidify the line. Well, looking back, making the trade and drafting Eli was likely the right call (I suppose you could argue that keeping the draft picks and drafting Roethlisberger instead may have resulted in another championship or two - but come on, who knows).
Seems like there's a good chance we can get our franchise QB next year - in which case we'd have Beckham, Barkley, and a guy who can actually get them the ball. If that happens, we may look back on this year and say drafting Barkley was the right move and that another long season was worth it.
But of course, there looms the possibility that we may regret not drafting Darnold for a long, long time.
Time will tell...
I just don't understand this line of thinking and I've seen it several times. You are only drafting one guy. It doesn't matter one bit how the draft class stacks up relative to other classes. It's a one to one comparison. Is Barkley a far and away better prospect than your highest rated QB available at that pick. The Giants thought yes and I agreed with them, and I really, really liked Darnold and I do believe he will be a successful franchise QB. I'm happy for the Jets and their fans. However, there will be another guy as good as Darnold in the draft, likely next year. Darnold wasn't a generational QB like Luck or Peyton. He was a very good QB prospect and I would've supported the pick and understood it if they went that way. But I'm over the moon at having Barkley in the fold.
And when we get the heir apparent in a Drew Lock or Ryan Finley or Will Grier, 10 years from now you might be saying, "Wow, remember when we were arguing about Darnold over Barkley? We are so lucky we were a little more patient and landed _____ QB.
It's not about 1 year. It's not about 1 year. It's not about 1 year.
Quote:
obviously do not understand that Barkley could be Marshall Faulk and Darnold could be Mark Sanchez or else they would not be screaming at this point.
And the people screaming for Barkley do not understand that Barkley could be Reggie Bush, Trent Richardson or Cadillac Williams.
That works both ways, there's risk to drafting any position.
And for you to make those comparisons is laughable. I'm trying hard not to insult you for saying something so idiotic. He's already shown more than Richardson, anyway.
Unless the unforeseen happens (tragic accident, meteor strike, or surprise medical situation), Barkley is and will be a homerun. Period end of story. There is literally zero chance he's a bust based on ability to play football. Zero.
Jim, I thought the team would be a 6-8 win team (with room for upside if things broke right). Planning on being as awful as they were last year was not factored into my predictions.
Keeping Eli and turning over more than half the roster was all they could do last offseason, we knew (if you were willing to acknowledge it) we're looking at 2-3 seasons to rebuild and perhaps more as it takes time to tear down the past (in terms of the contracts/salary cap).
Keeping Eli and turning over more than half the roster was all they could do last offseason, we knew (if you were willing to acknowledge it) we're looking at 2-3 seasons to rebuild and perhaps more as it takes time to tear down the past (in terms of the contracts/salary cap).
Thank you...this was not a 1 year make over. Minimum 2 years.
I've also learned to change the channel...
Quote:
And when we get the heir apparent in a Drew Lock or Ryan Finley or Will Grier, 10 years from now you might be saying, "Wow, remember when we were arguing about Darnold over Barkley? We are so lucky we were a little more patient and landed _____ QB.
Jim, I thought the team would be a 6-8 win team (with room for upside if things broke right). Planning on being as awful as they were last year was not factored into my predictions.
That's understandable and they could still get there. And even still, at 6-10 maybe they would still get their guy because so many bad teams got their franchise signal caller this year or in recent years. And teams that clearly need a franchise QB, like Denver and New Orleans, they are going to win 8 games or more almost assuredly.
I never thought the Giants would be a playoff team. I thought, if everything broke right, the moon and the stars aligned, and fate intervened, they could go 10-6, but that was on the verge of dreaming. I thought maybe 5-11 or 6-10, to your point, would be about right.
We'll see. I think just enjoy watching OBJ and Barkley this year. Even enjoy watching Eli (although it's pretty tough right now to enjoy it), because this may be his last full year starting for the NY Giants. This could be his swan song.
Don't watch for playoff hopes or a winning season, because this is just year 1 of a rebuild.
I still think it's an exciting time both for the foundation that was brought in and for the possibilities of the new QB that is coming.
As others have said, Barkley is a once in a decade type player on the level of guys like Adrian Peterson, Ladanian Tomlison, Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, etc. Unlike the QBs previously named, you don't find a guy like that every year.
Not drafting a QB isn't the issue with this team. The offensive line clearly is the number 1 problem, and I don't think anyone thinks taking Nelson over Barkley was the right pick. It's going to take time. Grab the QB next year, make more moves along the line in the second round and through free agency and continue to improve. This is just year 1 for Barkley, let's see where we are with him, and the team around him, in years 3, 4, 5 before we say taking the once in a generation prospect was the wrong move.
I still like the pick because I see Eli Manning still having gas in the tank, and I see no real reason to think Lauletta was a wasted pick. Who knows?
I support the pick. Barkley is going to be fun to watch.
The Giants need a better offensive line. If they had two more very good pieces there, I don't think this would be a conversation.
fwiw
I would've drafted Darnold, but I recognized that he was a flawed prospect that we would've hoped the best for. I'm perfectly fine with the Giants instead drafting THE BEST OVERALL PROSPECT in the class. I haven't really given it a second thought. The only way I would've joined the chorus of incessant complaints and criticisms is if they passed on a Tony Boselli/Jonathan Ogden-type OL prospect.
The idea that the Giants can't get QBs in another draft or trade up to get a QB prospect they love is ridiculous. Once again, none of these 4 players were Andrew Luck. What isn't ridiculous is the fact they didn't love any of these QB prospects regardless of how they felt about Eli. It's quite understandable.
Keeping Eli and turning over more than half the roster was all they could do last offseason, we knew (if you were willing to acknowledge it) we're looking at 2-3 seasons to rebuild and perhaps more as it takes time to tear down the past (in terms of the contracts/salary cap).
That's borderline insane if they knew it - keeping Eli around to endure this for 2 seasons before they become competitive again?
They're going to get the guy killed at this rate.
fact is the secondary is still blowing coverages at times,the front 7 isnt getting enough pressure and it was always going to take time for that OL to gel. the injury to halapio is a blow that makes trading jones look ill advised right now
barkley is the best pick they could have made once the OL gets better he will make more plays and that will in turn open up the passing game to OBJ/Engram/Shepard etc there was no mack or ogden type pick in that draft he was the best prospect and they went with it any skill position player and look at OBJ for proof he wasnt the player he is now his first 2 games it takes time to find your feet at NFL level and barkley will do that in time IF the OL gives him the holes and eli the time to allow it and make the threat of play action something defences have to account for thou
You can not win consistently in the NFL without a top QB. Sure, they can draft one in future years, but you have no idea where they will be picking and what kind of QB class it will be.
Last year was according to most a pretty strong QB class.
We've seen teams win consistently with average OL play, if they have a top QB for a while you can still do it. Hell we've seen the Giants win a super bowl in 2011-2012 with at best average o-line play, because Eli put the team on his shoulders to the playoffs that year.
Until this team has a franchise QB to replace Eli, it's not going to contend year in and year out. You need a franchise QB to do that.
Not having a franchise QB or even a good QB is close to as crippling as picking one #2 and missing.
The only thing a GM should be worried about is trying to build a team to compete for titles consistently. Not to go 8-8.
Bottoming out in 2003 was the best thing to happen to the Giants in a long time, because they got Eli. You don't win without a QB in this league on a regular basis.
Gettleman's quote that i posted above scares the hell out of me. He's living in denial. Running backs are paid what they aret because quite simply they are not worth investing big time money in. Gettleman still believes that it's a "crock" that running backs are undervalued around the league. He still believes that Jonathan Stewart hasn't lost anything. He doesn't believe in things that are backed up by actual data, but he does know that Saquon Barkley was touched by the hand of God.
Mara and Gettleman running this franchise should scare the hell out of everyone. DG has not earned the benefit of the doubt by any stretch. He's still living in the 1980's.
Here's a recent photo:
It's not about 2018. It never should have been about 2018. This team has so many holes on it that they should have been drafting for 2-3 years from now. Like Accorsi did in 2004.
Not one person who wanted a QB is arguing that they would have been better in 2018 as a result. The Giants went all in on 2018. In my opinion, that was a remarkably poor and short sighted decision.
Take the QB and if you hit on that pick the QB can hide a lot of warts. Saquon Barkley, as good as he is and can be, isn't going to hide the warts on this team.
QB's are the key to consistently winning. The Giants currently have no plan at QB. They can act like they do, but the people saying they do are also the people claiming that Davis Webb was the next great Giants QB.
DG thought this team was a lot better for 2018 than it actually is. They have Beckham, Barkley, Engram, and a few solid players on defense.
Anyone who thought this team was anything more than a 7-9 type squad this year was fooling themselves. The roster sucks.
Awesome.
MookGiants : 3:14 pm : link : reply
that a lot of you who still think Barkley was the correct pick also wanted Sean Taylor in the 2004 draft.
You are guessing. On that, on not picking a QB, on all of it, yet you appear to be going on the old axiom that if you say something enough times, it becomes true.
It may come true - it may not come true, but after two games thinking anything is true is completely asinine.
I dont know how anyone can say after 2 games you can definitively say the giants screwed up..
and what has darnold done to prove he is a future franchise qb?
Unless he has to, Mara usually doesn't go outside of the organization to hire people.
Keeping Reese around as long as he did was the biggest mistake. Then he finally cans him and brings in yet another guy with ties to the organization.
This team has sucked shit for a while now. 2016 was a fluke, the offense was garbage and the defense played WAY above their head. They won basically every close game. It was not sustainable.
Solder wasnt a horrible signing, but he got paid like a great left tackle when he isn't. Brady makes a lot of guys look much better than they are. Just because you have holes doesn't mean you go pay decent players like they are great. Build it the right way, not paying tons of money for just decent players. Everything he did in the off-season and said in the off-season shows that he thought this team could compete in 2018.
and probably an additional 1 pick for next draft
If they were realistic about the roster, all of the decisions made that off-season should have been geared towards the 2020 season, not 2018.
You can not win consistently in the NFL without a top QB. Sure, they can draft one in future years, but you have no idea where they will be picking and what kind of QB class it will be.
Last year was according to most a pretty strong QB class.
Huh? The 2004 QB class of prospects was FAR superior to the 2018 class. It's not even close. All four of these players had flaws and holes in their resumes. I really liked Sam Darnold, but he has less playing experience than any Super Bowl winning QB ever. Guys who leave college as redshirt sophomores are more likely to flame out than have extended successful NFL careers. Maybe Darnold will be the first, but he clearly had flaws as a prospect. Allen, Rosen, and Mayfield were even more questionable prospects.
In addition, no one thought Sean Taylor was the best prospect in the 2004 class. Barkley was almost unanimously seen as the best prospect of 2018. I could understand being critical of the Giants' choice if these QBs were high-end prospects, but they weren't. I could also understand criticizing the Giants if they selected someone unworthy of the second pick. Instead, they drafted the top overall prospect.
I absolutely think that Barkley was the best player in the past draft class. But I dont believe he will be anywhere near as valuable as more than a few guys. Taking a RB that high when you arent ready to win is bad business
Eli was not without flaws coming out of college. That draft class has turned out great, but coming into that draft all of the QB prospects had flaws.
Not having the OL to make him go - and possibly not having it this year or next - just makes it look worse.
It's obviously too soon - all of the QBs drafted in RD1 could turn out to be busts. Barkley could turn out to be a HoFer. Lots of things can still happen.
The probability still isn't in our favor though - the fact that Barkley's having a hard time getting going with this OL, combined with the systemic value placed on RBs in the NFL, makes it look like we reached to fill a position that most of the teams with top rated RBs managed to do a lot later in the draft. Meanwhile, Eli's on borrowed time with an OL that can't block for him this year, and might not be able to next year either.
It's an exercise in futility.
Again - the overhaul of this roster was massive, especially given the constraints of the cap. The only thing that doesn't fit into the narrative that they overhauled everything is that they kept Eli. How do you have any idea how that plays out with an eye to 2020?
What if they drafted Barkley, plan on building up the lines and cut Eli next year? You have no idea - yet you whine and act as if you do.
So many people are using win now vs. rebuilding as some mantra to say what's going on. What more change on the roster did you expect? I'll answer that - a new QB, and anything short of that apparently negates the other moves.
And yet after two games, you've made conclusions. The worst part is you don't even realize how ridiculous it comes off as. You truly believe you have an iron-clad take on the situation.
Give me a break. It was a figure of speech.
Get over it.
Win now is what fans what to hear and believe in, it continues to rake in the revenue. Meanwhile, the front office is working on plans for next offseason and figuring out the next phase and what can be done before the 2019 season.
If they knew the line needed to be rebuilt and they weren't going to do it in one year - why would they bring back Eli and put him behind a leaky OL once again? At that point, wouldn't you either trade or cut Eli? For both his own good and that of the team; he's not getting any younger, that line is atrocious, and he's costing us $20M. They could have used the money on FAs, picked up a mid-tier FA QB to run for his life for one year, and kicked the QB decision one year out.
Adrian Peterson only sniffed a super bowl when Favee turned the clock back. Otherwise he never even came close. Not because of him, not because his line sucked, because they had dogshit at QB
Adrian Peterson only sniffed a super bowl when Favee turned the clock back. Otherwise he never even came close. Not because of him, not because his line sucked, because they had dogshit at QB
Even they guy he's usually compared to - Barry Sanders - didn't manage more than one playoff game. And he was the gold standard for RBs.
Win now is what fans what to hear and believe in, it continues to rake in the revenue. Meanwhile, the front office is working on plans for next offseason and figuring out the next phase and what can be done before the 2019 season.
The idea that we had a 2-3 year rebuild in mind this off-season doesn't seem to jive with a lot of the comments or moves Gettleman has made to my eyes.
I'd feel a lot better if I thought the team saw a mediocre football team heading into the year. I'm concerned that they again overrated the team and are only just now going to realize how far away they are (assuming, of course, the season continues going poorly).
Even next year he'd carry a $6M dead cap hit. Still, if they knew they were going to be completely noncompetitive (assuming they knew the OL rebuild was a long way off), they should have known these were the results they'd get.
No one thought it would be worse.
Adrian Peterson only sniffed a super bowl when Favee turned the clock back. Otherwise he never even came close. Not because of him, not because his line sucked, because they had dogshit at QB
How much do you think Marshawn Lynch contributed to that Seahawks championship as compared to Wilson?
I dont know how anyone can say after 2 games you can definitively say the giants screwed up..
and what has darnold done to prove he is a future franchise qb?
I don't need two games to say they screwed up the draft. I knew the moment Barkley's name was announced.
For me, it's less about Barkley v Darnold, although that is the comparison that will be in the mix, it's really a position view: RB v QB (or DE or trade down). And the value for RB at #2 is exceedingly worse than the value for a QB, both in terms of cap benefit and position longevity.
In fact, it's not even a close analysis.
The only way the Barkley selection "works", and I'm making a big leap here, is if the Giants pull a rabbit out of the hat with Lauletta, make a trade for another QB already on an NFL roster, or get another high pick and get it right by nailing the QB.
Very hard to know about Lauletta, NFL trades pay a big price for QBs, and who knows if we'll get fortunate enough to be back in the top 5 for the opportunity...
Coincidentally, Eli had either just gotten paid or was about to get paid, so franchise QB's weren't worth the money at that time...
No one thought it would be worse.
That's the most damning thing right now. And it's still early there as well, but the initial results are not promising.
We can beat Flowers all day and night, but at the end of the year he's out of here. Solder has been pedestrian despite being very well paid, and Omameh has been brutal. Hernandez looks like he's got a long way to go (similar to Flowers in his rookie season). It's hard to be patient for a multi-year rebuild when the initial results are not encouraging.
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
What does that mean?
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
33 new players. It's a big roster turnover and more to come.
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
How though?
The two thoughts are mutually exclusive - you can't think 'man, this roster needs to be totally rebuilt, more of it is trash than not'
..while at the same time thinking..
'We should be able to win some games with this trash roster though, right?'
You mean the greatest RB of his generation, maybe ever?
That would be like saying you shouldn't draft a QB high because he can't overcome team deficiencies and pointing to Dan Marino.
Truly moronic.
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
My concern is that there's a dichotomy between what management expects and what's happening on the field - and I consider it a red flag if management thinks the team is closer to contending than it actually is. I'm concerned that there were steps taken this past off-season that wouldn't have been made if DG thought they were going to be a bad football team again.
I'm very much a DG skeptic for now.
Right now we don't know and won't know, because he can't run anywhere with this OL.
Quote:
but there's also a significant amount of pain that has to be endured to ride out and get rid of the Reese era too.
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
How though?
The two thoughts are mutually exclusive - you can't think 'man, this roster needs to be totally rebuilt, more of it is trash than not'
..while at the same time thinking..
'We should be able to win some games with this trash roster though, right?'
Keep in mind it's only a two game sample size, jcn. We've seen dead team walking begin to play better after a few games under their belts. Right now, they look overwhelmed and in shock. When they get more comfortable (or desperate) things will turn.
My guess is they felt the team would be competitive in the word hard, and make a run at 8-8 type of improvement. 8-8 with 33 new players, coaches, and systems is the arrow pointing up when essentially rebuilding a football team.
I really think expectations of the fans are too high, this whole thing is fluid. There's no continuity in place while learning new systems, the OL looks devoid of any confidence, the lack of pass rush is feeding back on the unit.
Barkley being a hall of fame running back does not mean that they will contend for Super Bowls.
Isn't that what the goal is? To contend for Super Bowls?
A good QB in todays NFL you could argue is more valuable than a hall of fame level running back.
Philip Rivers is a very good QB, no one would argue that he's a better player than LaDanian Tomlinson, but I don't think there's an argument to be made that LT was more valuable to the Chargers than Rivers has been.
And Rivers hasn't even really won anything.
The Giants have zero chance to regularly contend without a franchise QB. Doesn't matter if Barkley is a hall of fame level player, if they have average or shit play at QB, they aren't going anywhere.
Quote:
but there's also a significant amount of pain that has to be endured to ride out and get rid of the Reese era too.
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
My concern is that there's a dichotomy between what management expects and what's happening on the field - and I consider it a red flag if management thinks the team is closer to contending than it actually is. I'm concerned that there were steps taken this past off-season that wouldn't have been made if DG thought they were going to be a bad football team again.
I'm very much a DG skeptic for now.
It could be they're entirely terrible at their jobs so far, but I think it more likely it's just fan expectations being higher than reasonable.
I hope Barkley has a long long career with us but typically QB's have longer ones, and there were quite a few quality picks for us at QB that could have had longer ones that could have been built and rebuilt around .
The line is terrible. But even when he has time, Eli is missing throws. He missed more than a few against the Jaguars. He plays scared and it impacts plays where he doesn't even have pressure in his face. His physical skills have diminished, but mentally he looks finished. The look on his face that has turned into 50000 memes was not pretty
The Giants have zero chance to regularly contend without a franchise QB. Doesn't matter if Barkley is a hall of fame level player, if they have average or shit play at QB, they aren't going anywhere.
True for all teams. Even having a very good QB dosen't guarantee you a SB title.
You mean the greatest RB of his generation, maybe ever?
That would be like saying you shouldn't draft a QB high because he can't overcome team deficiencies and pointing to Dan Marino.
Truly moronic.
We're talking about positional value.
Moronic was expecting ANY RB, Barkley or otherwise - to be able to run behind this line.
And yet, that's exactly what we did.
It's still early - but I had zero faith in Gettleman when he was hired, and those early results are proving me right, unfortunately. You guys can keep at it with the pom-poms, at least I know there are some sane people left out there.
The QB/RB debate, 2 games in - Dan Schneier - ( New Window )
I hope Barkley has a long long career with us but typically QB's have longer ones, and there were quite a few quality picks for us at QB that could have had longer ones that could have been built and rebuilt around .
Sorry this was for section125
Quote:
In comment 14084000 JonC said:
Quote:
but there's also a significant amount of pain that has to be endured to ride out and get rid of the Reese era too.
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
My concern is that there's a dichotomy between what management expects and what's happening on the field - and I consider it a red flag if management thinks the team is closer to contending than it actually is. I'm concerned that there were steps taken this past off-season that wouldn't have been made if DG thought they were going to be a bad football team again.
I'm very much a DG skeptic for now.
It could be they're entirely terrible at their jobs so far, but I think it more likely it's just fan expectations being higher than reasonable.
I'd be fine if that's the case (the fan expectations part, not the terrible at their jobs part).
...
No one told this lie at all. Except Webb's mom. Just stop it.
I absolutely think that Barkley was the best player in the past draft class. But I dont believe he will be anywhere near as valuable as more than a few guys. Taking a RB that high when you arent ready to win is bad business
Eli was not without flaws coming out of college. That draft class has turned out great, but coming into that draft all of the QB prospects had flaws.
Here are the flaws I'm referring to...
Darnold - Redshirt sophomore with 26 career starts and a lot of turnovers. As I mentioned before, no QB who left school as a redshirt sophomore has ever won a Super Bowl and most flame out of the league.
Josh Allen - There isn't one successful current NFL QB who completed less that 60% of his passes in college their entire time in college. None of his college numbers are particularly impressive. In addition, he did that at a non-Power 5 school.
Rosen - Between injuries, numbers that didn't particularly stand out, lack of team success, and unknown off the field questions (at least to the fans), Rosen's outstanding arm and mechanics never really amounted to anything.
They were still thought of highly because their physical traits. The only QB with a resume matching the 3 guys from 2004 is Mayfield, but he had the least desirable physical traits of the 4 QBs.
Eli was in college for 5 years, started for 3 full seasons, had quality numbers when you consider the competition, and had team success. Rivers was a 4 year starter with excellent numbers. Big Ben was in college for 4 years, started 3 seasons, and had terrific numbers. When you look at successful QBs in the NFL, you see a lot more of the resume of the 2004 class than the 2018 group. And obviously physical talent is important too.
I think literally everyone recognizes the importance of the QB position in the sport. But the 2018 class isn't the elite Elway/Peyton/Luck level of prospects. They're not even the 2004 class level of QB prospects. In that case, I'm perfectly comfortable with the Giants taking the best overall player in the draft.
I know that. But the moves they made in the off-season were not long term strategy moves. Signing a 30 year old Solder, going all in on Eli, drafting a RB with the #2 overall pick. Everything they did in the off-season was short sighted to me at the time they did it.
I dont think you'll find one person out there who would say that this years QB class is even close to comparable to last years. This isn't going to be the year to be picking high if you need a QB.
Tank for Tua.
I have no interest in building teams to merely be "pretty good"
I don't see a path to winning a Super Bowl until they have a QB in place. Regardless of how good SB is.
I would not draft any running back #2 overall unless i felt i had a team ready to win within the next couple seasons. If the Giants management felt they were ready to win in 2018 or 2019 with this roster, then we're fucked.
Quote:
In comment 14084013 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
In comment 14084000 JonC said:
Quote:
but there's also a significant amount of pain that has to be endured to ride out and get rid of the Reese era too.
It's still early, and if they wind up 2-14 we're picking high again as a reward for the pain.
My concern is that there's a dichotomy between what management expects and what's happening on the field - and I consider it a red flag if management thinks the team is closer to contending than it actually is. I'm concerned that there were steps taken this past off-season that wouldn't have been made if DG thought they were going to be a bad football team again.
I'm very much a DG skeptic for now.
It could be they're entirely terrible at their jobs so far, but I think it more likely it's just fan expectations being higher than reasonable.
I'd be fine if that's the case (the fan expectations part, not the terrible at their jobs part).
We all want to start a brand new season flush with optimism and belief. We all want to believe the 2018 team would be more like the 2016 team and not the 2017 team. I felt we'd have to improve significantly to have a shot at 7-8 wins, but it would feel like progress if they played the game the right way and went down swinging.
I don't love the DG hire, didn't in January and don't now. It felt/feels short-sighted and I suspect it will be short-lived. But, for now I'm hoping they know better than we do.
Think back to when we played the Rams in London 2 years ago. The Rams were a rudderless franchise going nowhere. The Giants were starting to kick ass with a young and upcoming Head Coach who even had injuries figured out!
Outside of the Browns and the Patriots, year to year records in the NFL don't typically mean a whole lot.
Some of you, not sure if you're going for the high drama effect, are saying things like "QB hell", "destined for an era of losing"
We don't know who Barkley is yet. We don't know who Darnold is yet. We don't know what kind of opportunities to build the team we will have in front of us.
Eli did not sign a 10 year contract yesterday. They did not trade 2 firsts for Khalil Mack last week. Their head coach is a young man. They have all their picks.
Relax.
There isn't an argument to be made??
With Tomlinson, the Chargers won the division 5 times, having more than 10 wins 4 seasons.
Without Tomlinson, the Chargers haven't won the division nor won 10 games.
I think there's actually a pretty strong argument that Tomlinson was more valuable, and certainly not the dismissive idea there isn't an argument.
Can perspectives get any more whacked around here??
Chad Forbes
@NFLDraftBites
Weekly Reminder.... #Giants passed on Sam Darnold and skipped evaluating QBs because ownership hired ‘Yes Men’ who’d commit to Eli Manning for 2018-. Giants are back to the 1970s pre Parcells & George Young when John Mara’s father was running the franchise into the ground... sad.
10:58 PM - Sep 16, 2018
They most definitely evaluated QB's. They were at the QB workouts for the Combine as well as Pro days for the top prospects.
What's next?
How about...Eli Manning actually ran the NYG draft this year instead of Dave G?
How about...NYG really wanted Darnold but drafted Barkley to appease Beckham for contract leverage?
Any other conspiracy theories we can come up with?
With our Oline play, no QB would be any good here. None.
and both guys would be killed behind this Oline. As an aside, Lauletta's ball speed was measured at 52 and Watson's was 45!
What has Barkley done that says he looks like the best player in the draft hands down?
Not saying he hasn't played well, but outside of one huge run against Jacksonville, his YPC I believe is under 3.
Yes, Jacksonville has a very good defense and Dallas has a solid defense, but it's not like he's been lighting the world on fire. He's been solid, but hands down the best player in the draft? Denzel Ward was terrific week 1 and had a solid game last week.
2004 Brees wins comeback player of the year, and they go 12-4.
When the Chargers didn't have a QB for LT's first three seasons, they were 17-31.
You point to Rivers never winning a division title without Tomlinson. Yet Tomlinson was a shell of himself in 2009 and the Chargers went 13-3.
Philip Rivers has been more valuable to the Chargers than LaDanian Tomlinson was. 2015 and 2016 were the first two years that the Chargers sucked since Rivers got drafted. 2012 is the only other year that they were below .500 at 7-9.
Tomlinson would be close to a best case scenario for Barkley as far as their careers. And he basically fell off of a cliff after his 7th season.
We can not waste Barkley's prime. His prime isn't 5 years from now. If it doesn't start this year then it starts next year.
This has been disproven again, and again, and again. People keep trying to re-word it but are really still saying the same thing. Now we keep hearing the same BS buzz words/phrases; Win now, must win, rebuild, blah blah blah. Just stop already.
Look, it's really quite simple. Here's the last SB winners not named Eli Manning;
Nick Foles: Drafted in the 3rd round, traded away and the got him back in another trade (for a steal). He has 'some' mobility. SB MVP.
-Carson Wentz did most of the work to get them there IMHO but Foles DID get it done through the post-season, into the SB, and grabbed the MVP. He's a mobile QBs, that got hurt, using his mobility.
Tom Brady: Drafted IN THE 6TH ROUND. Not going to bother listing his accomplishments. He is the GOAT at this point. I wouldn't consider him mobile and he won his latest SB AT AGE 39.
Peyton Manning: Drafted #1. OK here you go right. Wait. He got his 2nd SB AT AGE 39. Also, how mobile was Peyton Manning again?
Russell Wilson: Here we go. A mobile QB and I really like Wilson. He uses his mobility wisely by not taking unnecessary hits. So there's your answer ... except, HE WAS DRAFTED IN THE 3RD ROUND.
Joe Flacco: Had a great year that year. Hasn't really done much since. Are we calling him a mobile QB? He was drafted in the 1st round but not until pick 18. I wouldn't call that a high draft pick at all.
Aaron Rogers. Yes he's mobile. Yes he's a phenomenal QB. Yes he was picked in the 1st round. However, not until pick 24. Hell Flacco was picked higher.
Ben Roethlisberger. He was picked in the 1st round. He's mobile. However, he was picked 11th. Not a hard draft spot to trade up to if needed.
I'll stop there but the point is valid no matter how far back I go. Ironically, the only QBs that were drafted as high as so many here think the Giants HAVE TO DRAFT A QB AT were Peyton Manning and Eli Manning. Neither of them mobile btw.
I will give credit to those at least picking one of these QBs. There are many on here simply saying, "should have picked 'A' QB". Most are picking Darnold and have the nerve to claim he's already playing better than Eli.
Darnold threw for 198 yards against a Lions defense that was ranked 27th last year. They allowed 243.2 yards per game. He threw for less than the average that the Lions allowed last year. That's below the average of all teams that faced the Lions. He did better against Miami throwing for 334 yards who were ranked 16th in pass defense last year. They allowed 225.2 yards last year. Except that he threw 2 picks and had a fumble.
Eli Manning threw for 224 yards against Jaguars who were the #1 PASSING DEFENSE last year. They allowed only 169.9 yards last year and Eli put up 224 yards. BTW, Brady put up 234 yards against the same defense and also turned the ball over to them once. Brady's was a forced fumble. Eli's was tipped interception. The Cowboys had the 11th ranked passing defense last year and gave up 214.1 yards. Eli put up 279 yards on them.
Eli, with what we all admit is a crappy OL, put up higher than the average yards against teams with very good passing defenses.
PUMP THE BRAKES!!!!
What really sucks is all the strong passing defenses the Giants have to face while an already crappy OL is trying to develop some cohesion. Crappy OL against tough pass rushes/defense are going to hurt the Giants for the whole year. That's the truth. No way around it. They really have to pull a rabbit out of their hats this year. Problem is, that rabbit is dead from all the sacks.
Finally on to the OPs question. First, I like how you worded it to suggest that nobody believes Barkley was the right pick. Most of the board is at least fine with the pick. Wordsmithing doesn't change that. Yes, I think the best prospect in the draft at any position was the right pick before. Yes, I think the best prospect in the draft at any position was the best pick now. I think the ONLY player that stood out as a possible HoF caliber player in the draft was/is Barkley!!!!!!
Damn you for getting me to judge players 2 games in which is absurd as it is. Let's all shut up now for at least 2 years, not 2 games.
What is the goal here anyway? Be proven right, Darnold becomes a stud, and you get to what, say I told you so for years? The Giants suck but hey, you were right so ... GFY!
Now whether Darnold, Rosen, or Allen were the right picks remains to be seen.
Now whether Darnold, Rosen, or Allen were the right picks remains to be seen.
So is Beckham's, Engram's, Shepard's and Eli's. Nothing you or I can do about it. Stop pouting. Barkley was a terrific pick. Gunna be a great player. Sooner or later the Giants will get the Oline fixed and the NFL will become their playground.
It is being said that even if Barkley is great, he is being called a TERRIBLE pick by several people.
In fact, you have posters who have said if Barkley is a HoF'er but we don't win a title and Darnold is just average, then it will be a franchise altering mistake.
It isn't a simple disagreement of the pick- it is the numerous posters who keep starting threads, daily at this rate, complaining that the pick wasn't a QB.
Hell, after two games, the OP is wondering just how anyone can still "believe" Barkley was the right pick! The audacity!!
Yup..and some cant see it that way
That said, trends;
-the increase in insane (in a good way) DL schemes ...and players, diverging from the dearth of great college OL prospects, might be begging for a more zone oriented O blocking thing,
-and it seems like ownership prefers old school power blocking.
If true, is this a reasonable course of action?
All that being too vague,
In any case - trading down, building the line, grabbing a true blocking TE, a cheaper RB (gallmans not bad at all) etc.
Not so crazy now.
A pile. That's 2 or even 3 OL players, Bigger TE for actual, not mythological, run and pass blocking, another RB, slot WR. Whatever it takes to keep the QB clean.
And with zone ol maybe you don't need the giant ones... Just technically great ones who do it all.
He is an awesome talent seemingly, but NYG is a top heavy team with some very high quality stars and no depth of roster.
2004 Brees wins comeback player of the year, and they go 12-4.
When the Chargers didn't have a QB for LT's first three seasons, they were 17-31.
You point to Rivers never winning a division title without Tomlinson. Yet Tomlinson was a shell of himself in 2009 and the Chargers went 13-3.
Philip Rivers has been more valuable to the Chargers than LaDanian Tomlinson was. 2015 and 2016 were the first two years that the Chargers sucked since Rivers got drafted. 2012 is the only other year that they were below .500 at 7-9.
Tomlinson would be close to a best case scenario for Barkley as far as their careers. And he basically fell off of a cliff after his 7th season.
We can not waste Barkley's prime. His prime isn't 5 years from now. If it doesn't start this year then it starts next year.
Good post. And easy pickings...
A pile. That's 2 or even 3 OL players, Bigger TE for actual, not mythological, run and pass blocking, another RB, slot WR. Whatever it takes to keep the QB clean.
And with zone ol maybe you don't need the giant ones... Just technically great ones who do it all.
Totally agree.
And refute the quality over quantity argument as well, since our quality isn't winning us shit since 2011.
We are overrated/suck at too many positions to spout our several quality superstars make a difference.
Time to take a fresh look...
Barkely isn't going to turn into a pumpkin next year. Look at Gurley, he's in year four of his career. And the Rams were even able to get a quarterback before he vanished into thin air.
There will be opportunities to draft a QB. And as it stands the Giants will be awful enough to get one this year.
What I personally can't believe is Gettleman and co. thought they had improved the team enough that Manning wouldn't get his shit kicked in weekly.
That super sucks for Manning. He's going to eat shit all year. I seriously fear he's going to get hurt.
I argued with just about every big time Manning fan on this site this off-season retaining him wasn't a good decision, not because I thought he couldn't ever be a good QB again. But because I doubted the Giants would be good enough to allow him to succeed.
Sucks, but looks like I am right.
The Giants are going to be in position for a top 10 pick this year, maybe even top 5.
The line cannot block simple stunts and now add in a dinosaur at center. Can't even imagine what happens if one of the guards misses time.
Absolutely need a QB, 2 more OL, a blocking TE and tall WR on Offense.
Have to have a Pass Rushing DE, 2 LBs, a slot CB and FS on Defense.
so other than that we should be good to go...
Pretty sure Gettleman said he did hear offers for the #2 pick from a few teams. He also said that he didn't think the offers were very good. None of us know what that pick could have been parlayed into.
SB was the safe easy choice because he was slam dunk good at a position of need. Need only in terms production because he already wasted $4M on his charity case Jonathan Stewart.
He was never going to trade that pick in a million years...
Also, while I cant be sure of it and state it as fact, the stench of Giants taking the 'one last run with Eli' and an errant gross belief this team was more 2016 than 2017 is all over their efforts since the Reese/Mcadoo canning.
If this is the covert 'two year rebuild' that is being claimed now to save face --which I heard not a whiff of this offseason, I heard 'Eli will prove you wrong' and utter salivation at this dream lineup more like it- they also don't seem to be off to a good start with it. Barkley Manning and Beckham carrying major cap hits makes it terrible execution.
And I believe he can play well enough to win behind a good offensive line. It's a shame that we likely will not get the opportunity to find out, as we don't have anything resembling a good OL on this roster.
Cannot stand the big free agent splashes as they seem to only slightly above draft picks in terms of success hit rates and are far too expensive.
Gotta figure out whether there is value in Lauletta...not to the disdain of what happened with Webb. But if he has the ability to hold down the fort next season if there is no QB worth pursuing.
Bottom line - this year is a collosal fucking waste of time but at least we picked up SB and a few other solid players in the draft. We have to jettison Eli with some grace and get this restructuring moving along with cluster picks/some free agent dollars allocated to more Olineman and pray to the football gods that we can find a quality starting QB in the next year or so...
Rodgers TD-Int Ratio- College=3.3/1.. Pro 4.0/1
Peyton: College= 2.70/1... Pro 2.14/1
Brady : College= 2/1... Pro 3/1
Wilson: College= 3.5/... Pro 2.8/1
Darnold= 2.59/1
Darnold has a chance to be very good but ball security may be an issue for him as I don't view him as a big time passer. He will take what the D gives him and operate underneath but only time will tell
There was one prospect in this draft that checked all the boxes and this is the player they took. He just so happened to be a RB, people can argue all day about the value but its a matter of preference.
So I am in the camp that still believes we got the right player. Only way that will change is if Barkley flops or one of these QBs proves them wrong. There is also the fact that the Giants could very well get there QB next year.
Did the Colts make the correct pick taking Peyton Manning when they could have drafted Charles Woodson? The answer is yes unless you factor in the fact that they could have drafted Brady 2 years later in later rounds. (Bill Polian had him rated highly but chose not to take him because they had Peyton) Hindsight is 20/20 and we have to wait and watch how it plays out. Just enjoy having a truly special player
A pile. That's 2 or even 3 OL players, Bigger TE for actual, not mythological, run and pass blocking, another RB, slot WR. Whatever it takes to keep the QB clean.
And with zone ol maybe you don't need the giant ones... Just technically great ones who do it all.
You understand that the Jets only gave up 3 2nd round picks to move up to three, right?
You understand that many teams in the week leading up to the draft shopped their pick to no takers right?
Just making sure people remember that. This wasn't 2012 where some idiots like the Redskins were going to give up 3 1st's and then some to get up to number 2.
Takes two teams to trade. Oh, and by the way, if this year's QB class was so great, why weren't teams offering trades like the RG3 trade to get up there?
The talk of Chubb ahead of SB was misdirection, and the only QB they liked was Darnold. Nelson was the choice if they traded down and the other three were all gone, but they were looking for an offer they couldn't refuse in order to budge.
No one was giving the Giants that type of haul. That type of haul is dead for a while.
The Giants need to start nailing some of their own picks. That would be a great place to start. Imagine if Hernandez is a bust?
Barkley
Nelson (only after trade down)
Darnold
No one was giving the Giants that type of haul. That type of haul is dead for a while.
The Giants need to start nailing some of their own picks. That would be a great place to start. Imagine if Hernandez is a bust?
That's exactly right. And there really haven't been any like that since that draft.
That's the drum I've been banging this offseason.
it was not an RG3 haul but that is not the barometer of value that was just a trade rape.
it was not an RG3 haul but that is not the barometer of value that was just a trade rape.
They traded a 1st and a 3rd to move up from 27 to 10 for Mahomes. That ain't much to jump 17 spots in the draft.
Houston traded a single 1st round pick to move from 25 to 12.
We had the number 2 pick. There were no takers. Cleveland was shopping the number 1 pick with no takers. Denver was shopping the number 5 pick with no takers.
The Jets moved from 6 to 3 for only 3 2nd round picks.
The Bills traded up from 12 to 7 for only 2 2nd round picks.
The Cardinals traded from 15 to 10 for only a 3rd and 7th.
So those three quarterbacks, all which were traded up for in this draft, yielded a combined 5 2nd round picks, a 3rd, and a 7th.
Think about that. That's how the teams valued them.
That's the drum I've been banging this offseason.
If you never draft a QB until a generational prospect comes along that makes the pick "easy", then you'll never end up with a QB. Your way suggests to only take a chance on a QB if he's a once a decade type player that appears to be an obvious hit.
Quote:
That's the drum I've been banging this offseason.
If you never draft a QB until a generational prospect comes along that makes the pick "easy", then you'll never end up with a QB. Your way suggests to only take a chance on a QB if he's a once a decade type player that appears to be an obvious hit.
No, that's twisting my words. In context, I said there are no sure fire lock franchise QB's in this draft, like there were in that draft so you better have a damn good conviction if there is a guy sitting there that he can be that guy for you.
They did not, and they passed. That's it.
Reese had been pretty much lockdown in the 1st/2nd rounds until the past few years, where he went off the rails. Flowers and Apple both look like pretty big misses relative to their draft position. And that's without getting into the record in the later rounds, which hadn't been great and was only worsening.
So what do we do? We fire them. OK, good start. Next? We bring in a guy who worked in that same FO, with many of the same scouts, and retain most of them.
If your problem is talent acquisition - how does keeping the scouting department intact and bringing back in a guy who until a few years prior was a big part of it give you any confidence in their assessment of the draft class? I know scouts don't normally get the ax until after the season, but bringing in an outsider would have at least brought in new perspective, if not a few extra sets of eyes to look over what those guys were doing.
It’s odd how people insight on pumping up the likes of darnold. He’s a good qb prospect. He’s not Andrew luck coming out. He’s not Eli or Bledsoe coming out. Doesn’t mean he won’t be great but he was never the cant miss once every 3-4 year collegiate/pro qb prospect no matter how much some might insist.
Move the fuck on already. We can find a qb.
We trade down or up in round 1 and take the qb relatively high. We’d have that young qb, lauletta, maybe Eli for one more year and a good crop of offensive talent. Ok fine Eli is dumped. Lauletta and rookie qb.
What is wrong with the above?
When did Sam darnold turn into John Elway or Peyton Manning? This isn’t a generational talent we passed on. Barkley is.
We trade down or up in round 1 and take the qb relatively high. We’d have that young qb, lauletta, maybe Eli for one more year and a good crop of offensive talent. Ok fine Eli is dumped. Lauletta and rookie qb.
What is wrong with the above?
When did Sam darnold turn into John Elway or Peyton Manning? This isn’t a generational talent we passed on. Barkley is.
Nothing wrong only this season was sacrificed without developing a young QB. In the long run it makes no difference. Just another year of torture watching this offense and then the QB hopefully will be drafted
It’s odd how people insight on pumping up the likes of darnold. He’s a good qb prospect. He’s not Andrew luck coming out. He’s not Eli or Bledsoe coming out. Doesn’t mean he won’t be great but he was never the cant miss once every 3-4 year collegiate/pro qb prospect no matter how much some might insist.
Move the fuck on already. We can find a qb.
What makes you confident that you can "find" a QB as easily as you make it sound? How many years has this franchise been looking for a QB before Eli Manning? Or the 25 other teams in the league that don't have one despite looking for years?
You're in a rush to dismiss something that's actually pretty directly related to doing the kind of winning that every wants.
If this QB class is so historical and generational, why wasn't a single first round pick surrendered to trade up for one of these guys, despite the fact that three teams traded up to get them?
If this QB class is so historical and generational, why wasn't a single first round pick surrendered to trade up for one of these guys, despite the fact that three teams traded up to get them?
That's a good question. It may be that the league is healthier than ever with good, quality QBs...
Quote:
the more I wonder how...
If this QB class is so historical and generational, why wasn't a single first round pick surrendered to trade up for one of these guys, despite the fact that three teams traded up to get them?
That's a good question. It may be that the league is healthier than ever with good, quality QBs...
And why is that? All I keep seeing on BBI is how impossible QBs are to find. But now you’re saying the opposite.
Nope. The top 4 QBs in the draft each had significant warts.
Nothing wrong only this season was sacrificed without developing a young QB. In the long run it makes no difference. Just another year of torture watching this offense and then the QB hopefully will be drafted
So you have already determined that Lauletta is worthless like Webb?
That's a good question. It may be that the league is healthier than ever with good, quality QBs...
And why is that? All I keep seeing on BBI is how impossible QBs are to find. But now you’re saying the opposite.
Those are your words not mine. I certainly think it's easier than ever to play the position - per the rules.
Quote:
the more I wonder how...
If this QB class is so historical and generational, why wasn't a single first round pick surrendered to trade up for one of these guys, despite the fact that three teams traded up to get them?
That's a good question. It may be that the league is healthier than ever with good, quality QBs...
So you're saying that starting QB's are easy to find then, if the league is full of healthy, good quarterbacks that are keeping teams from needing to draft them?
Meaning....?
Good GM's aren't willing to risk future things like 1st round picks on risky things like high draft QB's?
Before the draft, the following were universally accepted truths:
1. Finding a running back in the draft is easier than perhaps any other position
2. Finding a franchise QB in the draft is exceptionally difficult and can take years or even decades
3. There were 6 or 7 blue chip prospects in this draft: Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson
After the draft, those previously accepted truths were frequently challenged by BBIers that wanted to talk themselves into Barkley being the right pick.
If Gettleman truly thought this was a rebuilding year, then drafting Barkley at #2 and wasting a year of him is a fireable offense. If this was not intended to be a rebuilding year, then a 5-11/6-10 type year is a fireable offense.
So you're saying that starting QB's are easy to find then, if the league is full of healthy, good quarterbacks that are keeping teams from needing to draft them?
No. I'm saying this - a large majority of the teams seem content with their QB position. Whether they obtained one in prior drafts or used the free agency route.
So the demand for moving aggressively in the draft to get one may not be there. Per your question...
If GMs on both sides become more even-keeled, the bid-ask converge closer and closer...
Quote:
So you're saying that starting QB's are easy to find then, if the league is full of healthy, good quarterbacks that are keeping teams from needing to draft them?
No. I'm saying this - a large majority of the teams seem content with their QB position. Whether they obtained one in prior drafts or used the free agency route.
So the demand for moving aggressively in the draft to get one may not be there. Per your question...
Are those teams run by incompetent fools as well? I mean after all, this is a historical draft, right up there with 1983 and 2004. A class like this seemingly only comes around every 20 years or so. Gotta strike while the iron is hot.
Before the draft, the following were universally accepted truths:
1. Finding a running back in the draft is easier than perhaps any other position
2. Finding a franchise QB in the draft is exceptionally difficult and can take years or even decades
3. There were 6 or 7 blue chip prospects in this draft: Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson
After the draft, those previously accepted truths were frequently challenged by BBIers that wanted to talk themselves into Barkley being the right pick.
This place gets more and more strange by the year. Like it's scary how people will deny things just to get an opinion out.
All those things are true, by the way. Unless you read this website in april.
Are those teams run by incompetent fools as well? I mean after all, this is a historical draft, right up there with 1983 and 2004. A class like this seemingly only comes around every 20 years or so. Gotta strike while the iron is hot.
I don't get the incompetent fool part.
Whether this 2018 draft is historical or not remains to be seen. But I think the quality was very deep and comparable to those years you mentioned. So for a team like us, with an aging QB on the back nine of his career, it would have made great sense to pounce on the opportunity.
And what about finding a RB? How much was given up for Matt Breida and Phillip Lindsay?
The concepts of roster construction and resource allocation only seem to apply to other teams. But I would bet my mortgage that if we had drafted Darnold there wouldn't be anyone here saying we should have drafted Barkley.
And what about finding a RB? How much was given up for Matt Breida and Phillip Lindsay?
The concepts of roster construction and resource allocation only seem to apply to other teams. But I would bet my mortgage that if we had drafted Darnold there wouldn't be anyone here saying we should have drafted Barkley.
Actually, there were a lot of people that were on board with Gallery and Sean Taylor that were fine with keeping Kerry Collins.
The notion that we will only find a QB at the number two overall pick in 2018, and only there kinda pisses me off too.
Quote:
The notion that we can "find a QB" really pisses me off. This very team moved up in a loaded draft in 2004 to get a QB...how many people were saying we can "find a QB" then?
And what about finding a RB? How much was given up for Matt Breida and Phillip Lindsay?
The concepts of roster construction and resource allocation only seem to apply to other teams. But I would bet my mortgage that if we had drafted Darnold there wouldn't be anyone here saying we should have drafted Barkley.
Actually, there were a lot of people that were on board with Gallery and Sean Taylor that were fine with keeping Kerry Collins.
The notion that we will only find a QB at the number two overall pick in 2018, and only there kinda pisses me off too.
That's one hell of a bad example to work with, since that ton of people would be proven horribly wrong a few years later.
It's easy to look back now and say it was wrong. Hindsight is 20/20.
Why don't we wait a couple years then, instead of 2 games.
Before the draft, the following were universally accepted truths:
1. Finding a running back in the draft is easier than perhaps any other position
2. Finding a franchise QB in the draft is exceptionally difficult and can take years or even decades
3. There were 6 or 7 blue chip prospects in this draft: Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson
After the draft, those previously accepted truths were frequently challenged by BBIers that wanted to talk themselves into Barkley being the right pick.
If Gettleman truly thought this was a rebuilding year, then drafting Barkley at #2 and wasting a year of him is a fireable offense. If this was not intended to be a rebuilding year, then a 5-11/6-10 type year is a fireable offense.
+1.
It's easy to look back now and say it was wrong. Hindsight is 20/20.
Why don't we wait a couple years then, instead of 2 games.
You just have to pick a QB at #2 because the odds are so much greater in your favor. Otherwise, like we did, it's basically a dereliction of duty.
The miss rate is probably still 50/50, but that's still worth the stretch, especially, and most significantly, because if you hit on the good 50% that contract is an enormous benefit under the cap.
How silly this all is.
It's easy to look back now and say it was wrong. Hindsight is 20/20.
Why don't we wait a couple years then, instead of 2 games.
If we're waiting a couple years why aren't we waiting with a young QB?
Are you really OK with an organizational strategy that involves waiting 2 years to rebuild the roster AND hoping you find a QB in that time?
No. NO.
So you're either:
a. going to waste two of those years with him sitting the bench
b. throwing him right out of the wolves and possibly ruining his development by making him a sitting duck out there behind that high school level offensive line that you say is going to take at least two years to fix.
Pick your poison.
Come in buddy, please stop. The other years we had a different GM, Coach and personnel (33 new this year?) and just 2 games in with a new GM, New HC and 3 new OL. The results may “be the same” to date, but prior years are irrelevant
And what about finding a RB? How much was given up for Matt Breida and Phillip Lindsay?
The concepts of roster construction and resource allocation only seem to apply to other teams. But I would bet my mortgage that if we had drafted Darnold there wouldn't be anyone here saying we should have drafted Barkley.
And you talk about “bending the narrative”. From almost everything I’ve seen of the guys defending the Barkley pick, almost every single one of them have said that they were on board with taking a QB if the team had conviction with one. They didn’t, and took Barkley. So that leaves two choices:
1. Accept the fact that we aren’t going back and redrafting, move on and figure out the next moves to make this team better.
2. Continue to whine, bitch, moan and complain about it, hope that the league decides to redraft, and if they don’t, continue to throw hissy fits on 7000 threads a day pretending that Darnold is some guaranteed Hall of Fame QB that can never, ever be replaced again.
You’ve decided choice two is the best route to take, as a fan. But believe it or not, there are some that actually did want a QB, have admitted so even today, but are still ok with the decision to take Barkley. Nobody is moving goal posts here. I’m not sure why you think everybody on here should be throwing shit fits like you when not one of us have a clue about how Darnold or anybody else in this draft turns out. Hell, I wanted Darnold. Have no problem saying it and have said it a thousand times. They didn’t take him. Wtf can I do about it now? Barkley is an amazing player too. And I can absolutely see why they chose him if they didn’t have conviction on one of the QBs.
You obviously don’t care about conviction and just wanted a QB. Any QB. Just to say you had a QB. Feel free to continue your outrage. It should really change the outcome. Maybe sign a petition to get the league to consider a redraft.
c. you build the roster around Eli Manning, so that when you finally do draft that young guy or however you get that QB of the future, he comes right in to a good situation set up to succeed, not fail.
Wouldn't it be nice for the rookie QB to take the field with a fixed offensive line, Barkley, Beckham, Engram, and Sheppard all a well oiled machine at that point?
That's what I think they're doing, and I don't think it's wrong. It's just a different approach.
BB'56 - I'm sorry but you've got your head in the sand if you think this year is independent from the previous.
c. you build the roster around Eli Manning, so that when you finally do draft that young guy or however you get that QB of the future, he comes right in to a good situation set up to succeed, not fail.
Wouldn't it be nice for the rookie QB to take the field with a fixed offensive line, Barkley, Beckham, Engram, and Sheppard all a well oiled machine at that point?
That's what I think they're doing, and I don't think it's wrong. It's just a different approach.
But they didn't build the roster around Eli. A roster built around Eli focuses first and foremost on the OL - not on shiny toys that won't get the ball in positions to succeed because Eli is scrambling for his life.
I just can't believe the willingness to turn a blind eye to this level of incompetence.
There are two ways to view this situation: what you hope it will become, and what it actually is. Those lines have been pretty clearly drawn.
Quote:
The point is a ton of people were not saying that we had to take a QB and only QB at all costs. It just didn't happen.
It's easy to look back now and say it was wrong. Hindsight is 20/20.
Why don't we wait a couple years then, instead of 2 games.
If we're waiting a couple years why aren't we waiting with a young QB?
Are you really OK with an organizational strategy that involves waiting 2 years to rebuild the roster AND hoping you find a QB in that time?
No. NO.
The problem with your rebuild idea is if you decide to do a complete rebuild like you wanted, you almost have to take the QB as the final piece of the puzzle to get the most out of his first contract. What good would it have done the Giants to draft a QB and break this all down? You wanted Beckham gone, no Solder, Vernon, there would be no Barkley, etc. so essentially you have a rookie QB and the worst roster in football to go with him. So, how long do you think this rebuild would take? If you’re literally replacing every player on the field, how many years of picks is that going to take? Historically speaking, you’re likely to get one or two quality starters in each draft. So how many drafts before you hit on enough to be competitive? 5? 6? More?
By the time the team around the QB is ready to compete, that QB you drafted is either up for a huge contract or out of the league because his confidence got destroyed playing on such a shitty team.
Quote:
and I know this is unconventional....
c. you build the roster around Eli Manning, so that when you finally do draft that young guy or however you get that QB of the future, he comes right in to a good situation set up to succeed, not fail.
Wouldn't it be nice for the rookie QB to take the field with a fixed offensive line, Barkley, Beckham, Engram, and Sheppard all a well oiled machine at that point?
That's what I think they're doing, and I don't think it's wrong. It's just a different approach.
But they didn't build the roster around Eli. A roster built around Eli focuses first and foremost on the OL - not on shiny toys that won't get the ball in positions to succeed because Eli is scrambling for his life.
I just can't believe the willingness to turn a blind eye to this level of incompetence.
There are two ways to view this situation: what you hope it will become, and what it actually is. Those lines have been pretty clearly drawn.
They have cut and signed 33 new players. It's been two games. They have completely turned the offensive line over except for one player who likely won't be brought back next year.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
BB'56 - I'm sorry but you've got your head in the sand if you think this year is independent from the previous.
Disagree. It is nearly a complete overhaul. The only resemblance are the 2 game results, an extremely small sample size. Agree to disagree. No minds will be changed until most, if not all, of the season is in the books, imv
The roster they inherited was a complete and utter disaster.
They only get one offseason and 2 games to fix it?
Not drafting a QB.
Had we drafted a QB, there would not be a single thread advocating firing Dave Gettleman and Pat Shurmur being incompetent or fired. Not a single one.
From anybody, pro drafting QB or not.
Now, it's "it's only been a couple of games" or "They have to fix years of bad drafting. It's going to take more than one offseason."
What happened to the mindset of a couple of months ago of this team is going be competitive or, in some cases, kick ass this season?
Why is that a problem? I'm not making the decisions. I'm a fan.
However, what I've said all along has been pretty much in line exactly with what they've done. Doesn't mean they feel the same way I do, just means I had a good read on the situation apparently.
Now, it's "it's only been a couple of games" or "They have to fix years of bad drafting. It's going to take more than one offseason."
What happened to the mindset of a couple of months ago of this team is going be competitive or, in some cases, kick ass this season?
I’m still of that compete mindset, my friend. As I’ve opined, save for injuries and with AVERAGE OL play, we will compete. The 3 new OL have not been average as a whole, but I firmly believe they will mesh. If they don’t, we’re in big trouble
The roster they inherited was a complete and utter disaster.
They only get one offseason and 2 games to fix it?
If they are going to make offseason moves that suggest the team is ready to compete now, then yes I expect them to compete now. If you're keeping a 37 year old QB, drafting a RB #2 overall, and committing $65M guaranteed to a WR I expect that team to compete. I expect competent offensive football. I don't expect, nor do I accept, the offensive incompetence we've seen in these two games.
If they turn it around this season I'll happily say I was completely wrong. But given comments about Rome not being built in a day and giving them a couple years, I know none of us think that will actually happen.
More excuses, more rationalizations, more bending of the narrative. It's the only way Giants football has been palatable for 5 years now.
Thus far, the decisions that the Giants made in the offseason look like they were very much the wrong decisions. And again, that's not because they are 0-2. It's because of how they look while playing in those games.
Expect the best but plan for the worst.
I’m still of that compete mindset, my friend. As I’ve opined, save for injuries and with AVERAGE OL play, we will compete. The 3 new OL have not been average as a whole, but I firmly believe they will mesh. If they don’t, we’re in big trouble
I predicted a 9-7 season and that they'd have a slow start. I had no idea the new Oline would be this bad.
Quote:
I’m still of that compete mindset, my friend. As I’ve opined, save for injuries and with AVERAGE OL play, we will compete. The 3 new OL have not been average as a whole, but I firmly believe they will mesh. If they don’t, we’re in big trouble
I predicted a 9-7 season and that they'd have a slow start. I had no idea the new Oline would be this bad.
If we underscore THIS BAD, no I didn’t expect it to this degree. Acclimation? Syncing? Meshing? I “knew” that would take time..
So am I. This is about what we actually see happening, not what we're hoping will happen.
Quote:
That's the drum I've been banging this offseason.
If you never draft a QB until a generational prospect comes along that makes the pick "easy", then you'll never end up with a QB. Your way suggests to only take a chance on a QB if he's a once a decade type player that appears to be an obvious hit.
In hindsight, that's the grade EA had on Eli, that he was generational.
Not drafting a QB.
Had we drafted a QB, there would not be a single thread advocating firing Dave Gettleman and Pat Shurmur being incompetent or fired. Not a single one.
From anybody, pro drafting QB or not.
This is wrong. Some people are upset about not drafting a QB. That's inherently tied to how well Barkley does long term, and so far he has looked good.
But most people are upset due to the lack of progress. The decision to not draft a QB was as much tied to the team's short term prospects with Eli as anything else, and now it's looking like all the changes we were sold on - Gettleman's 'hog mollies', Shurmur's offensive creativity - have yielded results no different than what we had last year, with an over his head McAdoo, Reese's squad and a ton of injuries.
If the Giants were doing OK now - not great, but just showed some signs of life and progress - the fan backlash wouldn't be anywhere near this bad. This isn't about the QB position, this is about the lack of confidence plan for the Giants, present and future.
That is indisputable.
If the Giants were doing OK now - not great, but just showed some signs of life and progress - the fan backlash wouldn't be anywhere near this bad. This isn't about the QB position, this is about the lack of confidence plan for the Giants, present and future.
I think the Giants would be OK and most of us happy if the Oline just played better. I am hoping to see those 5 get better each week. It's going to be crappy here until the blocking improves.
Give Eli time to locate a target and throw. Give Barkley a hole to run to once in a while.
If we'd drafted a QB #2, he would (or at least should) be playing, and Eli will have been released. Eli had an out in his contract where, had he been designated a post-June 1 cut, the Giants would have had $6.2M in dead money in 2018 and 2019. That was the time to move on from him.
We can release him after this year and have $6.2M in dead money in 2019...and Kyle Lauletta at QB.
It's amazing how many planets aligned for the Giants to transition from one franchise QB to a top franchise QB prospect. The high draft pick, the new GM and coach, the QB class, the out in Eli's contract...it really is stunning that they did what they did.
Player evaluation is not absolute. Everyone has a different.opinion.
What I do know? Barkley is clearly a generational talent at RB. His combination of size, speed, and.elusiveness is rare to say the least.
For the record I was very pro darnold pre draft but stop it with this dumb shit 2 days into these guys career.
RELAX. In a month when Darnold puts up some duds and Barkley helps us get some.wins.this is going to look idiotic.
It's amazing how many planets aligned for the Giants to transition from one franchise QB to a top franchise QB prospect. The high draft pick, the new GM and coach, the QB class, the out in Eli's contract...it really is stunning that they did what they did.
If we did take Darnold (no Barkley) jettisoned Eli, Would you be OK with having Darnold play behind this Oline? I'd think you'd need a better backup veteran QB to start most of the games this year.
Quote:
...
It's amazing how many planets aligned for the Giants to transition from one franchise QB to a top franchise QB prospect. The high draft pick, the new GM and coach, the QB class, the out in Eli's contract...it really is stunning that they did what they did.
If we did take Darnold (no Barkley) jettisoned Eli, Would you be OK with having Darnold play behind this Oline? I'd think you'd need a better backup veteran QB to start most of the games this year.
Could you imagine Darnold fluttering around with this OL, throwing up interception after interception, fumbling on sacks, etc (which is his reputation and the concern teams had with him)? Then the narrative would be “Gettleman needs to be fired! He picked the wrong guy! I knew he should have taken Rosen!”.
These guys all claim that they were willing to be patient if they took a QB. We all know that’s not true. The pitchforks would be out in force after two games of futility, making the threads we are seeing now look like child’s play.
Oh c'mon, you really want to sit there and say that if the Giants had drafted a QB, BBI would suddenly find patience and in unison decide not to criticize the shit product on the field?
You don't actually believe that, do you?
He was the best player in that draft. He is a Hall of Famer. he is probably the 2nd greatest WR in NFL history.
Even if you disagree with that, you would have to agree that is a better WR all-time than Eli, Ben or Rivers are QBs all-time
But would anyone redraft that and take Fitzgerald over Eli, Ben or Rivers?
Barkley being a hall of fame running back does not mean that they will contend for Super Bowls.
Isn't that what the goal is? To contend for Super Bowls?
A good QB in todays NFL you could argue is more valuable than a hall of fame level running back.
Philip Rivers is a very good QB, no one would argue that he's a better player than LaDanian Tomlinson, but I don't think there's an argument to be made that LT was more valuable to the Chargers than Rivers has been.
And Rivers hasn't even really won anything.
The Giants have zero chance to regularly contend without a franchise QB. Doesn't matter if Barkley is a hall of fame level player, if they have average or shit play at QB, they aren't going anywhere.
See no this is just bullshit. Serious bullshit. How the fuck do and so many others make this enormous leap that IF darnold wins a super bowl with the jets that he’d win that super bowl with the giants if drafted by the giants?????
How??? How and why is this ridiculousness continuously allowed to be the center talking point to this stupid premature debate??? Total fantasy speculative bullshit.
Barkley has a hof career but the team falls short of a title, who knows how short for all we know the giants actually made some serious playoffs noise a few times on Barkley’s back but never mind that! No super bowl? Bust! Darnold won one with the jets who built a great team that helped darnold? Welp, darnold obviously would have won one with nyg! Yes sir! Just bollocks!
This season is basically a colossal waste of time until this Offense finds stability thru an Offensive Line that works or a QB that can operate behind it. Right now we have neither.
So until that happens we will just sift thru players figuring out keepers and discards, and hopefully accumulate some core group of draft picks that are worth restructuring around.
Clearly Barkley was a really good pick, but in no way can he be described as the right pick or enough to make a difference...
This season is basically a colossal waste of time until this Offense finds stability thru an Offensive Line that works or a QB that can operate behind it. Right now we have neither.
So until that happens we will just sift thru players figuring out keepers and discards, and hopefully accumulate some core group of draft picks that are worth restructuring around.
Clearly Barkley was a really good pick, but in no way can he be described as the right pick or enough to make a difference...
Your last statement is part of the moronic plague that currently inhabits BBI which deal in absolutes based on ridiculous bullshit. Stop.
See no this is just bullshit. Serious bullshit. How the fuck do and so many others make this enormous leap that IF darnold wins a super bowl with the jets that he’d win that super bowl with the giants if drafted by the giants?????
How??? How and why is this ridiculousness continuously allowed to be the center talking point to this stupid premature debate??? Total fantasy speculative bullshit.
Barkley has a hof career but the team falls short of a title, who knows how short for all we know the giants actually made some serious playoffs noise a few times on Barkley’s back but never mind that! No super bowl? Bust! Darnold won one with the jets who built a great team that helped darnold? Welp, darnold obviously would have won one with nyg! Yes sir! Just bollocks!
It’s not, actually. Why the hell did Denni Green think Josh McNown or Shaun King were the answers at QB?
Personally, I thought Barkley was the best player in the draft and still believe that. However, I had the unpopular view of trading down and possibly targeting Jackson at QB.
Quote:
just like last year.
This season is basically a colossal waste of time until this Offense finds stability thru an Offensive Line that works or a QB that can operate behind it. Right now we have neither.
So until that happens we will just sift thru players figuring out keepers and discards, and hopefully accumulate some core group of draft picks that are worth restructuring around.
Clearly Barkley was a really good pick, but in no way can he be described as the right pick or enough to make a difference...
Your last statement is part of the moronic plague that currently inhabits BBI which deal in absolutes based on ridiculous bullshit. Stop.
Give me the alternative debate vs your jedi knight wannabe comments. And watch who you call a moron...
Before the draft, the following were universally accepted truths:
3. There were 6 or 7 blue chip prospects in this draft: Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson
After the draft, those previously accepted truths were frequently challenged by BBIers that wanted to talk themselves into Barkley being the right pick.
Talk about bending the narrative. Those QBs were "blue chip" prospects now the level of Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson? Jeez, then what were Elway, Peyton, or Luck? These guys weren't prospects on RG3's level, let alone the 2004 class of 3. Three of them were coming out of college too early and the fourth was short with questionable maturity and off the field decision-making. Once again, neither Darnold (who I would've drafted), Rosen, or Allen has the resume of a successful NFL QB. They sure as fuck aren't generational choices like Luck. They're guys with excellent physical upsides, but have flaws and are risky. If the Giants chose to bypass that for the prospect seen near unanimously (Mayock, Brandt, Jeremiah, Kiper, McShay) as the best player in the draft, I'm okay with that.
Quote:
More of that going on here. I feel the need to repeat this:
Before the draft, the following were universally accepted truths:
3. There were 6 or 7 blue chip prospects in this draft: Mayfield, Darnold, Allen, Rosen, Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson
After the draft, those previously accepted truths were frequently challenged by BBIers that wanted to talk themselves into Barkley being the right pick.
Talk about bending the narrative. Those QBs were "blue chip" prospects now the level of Barkley, Chubb, and Nelson? Jeez, then what were Elway, Peyton, or Luck? These guys weren't prospects on RG3's level, let alone the 2004 class of 3. Three of them were coming out of college too early and the fourth was short with questionable maturity and off the field decision-making. Once again, neither Darnold (who I would've drafted), Rosen, or Allen has the resume of a successful NFL QB. They sure as fuck aren't generational choices like Luck. They're guys with excellent physical upsides, but have flaws and are risky. If the Giants chose to bypass that for the prospect seen near unanimously (Mayock, Brandt, Jeremiah, Kiper, McShay) as the best player in the draft, I'm okay with that.
You can't force the issue. You invest millions in scouting every year and if your scouting department tells you that none of the QBs justify the pick, then it's the next man up. In this case, it was Barkley. I don't have a problem with that. Time will tell.
Quote:
Nothing wrong only this season was sacrificed without developing a young QB. In the long run it makes no difference. Just another year of torture watching this offense and then the QB hopefully will be drafted
So you have already determined that Lauletta is worthless like Webb?
No idea, I think it would be awesome if Lauletta turns out to be Eli's successor. I don't think it's likely given his lack of arm strength, but it would be great.
He was the best player in that draft. He is a Hall of Famer. he is probably the 2nd greatest WR in NFL history.
Even if you disagree with that, you would have to agree that is a better WR all-time than Eli, Ben or Rivers are QBs all-time
But would anyone redraft that and take Fitzgerald over Eli, Ben or Rivers?
Ummmm yeah, the Chargers would. They already had Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, and Gates. Fitzgerald over Rivers is the pick in a redraft.
Quote:
Larry Fitzgerald?
He was the best player in that draft. He is a Hall of Famer. he is probably the 2nd greatest WR in NFL history.
Even if you disagree with that, you would have to agree that is a better WR all-time than Eli, Ben or Rivers are QBs all-time
But would anyone redraft that and take Fitzgerald over Eli, Ben or Rivers?
Ummmm yeah, the Chargers would. They already had Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, and Gates. Fitzgerald over Rivers is the pick in a redraft.
Schottenheimer was the coach. He loved to run the ball, control clock and play solid D. They had more than enough offensive pieces.
Manning was a great pick to get Rivers. They weren’t going to take Fitz #1.
It was a foregone conclusion that Manning was going number one leading up to the draft. Months in advance.
That was never the case with one of the QB's this year.
It's not like Fitzgerald was the consensus best player in the draft that year OVER the QB's.
Gallery was a dud, but it is really difficult to pick out huge busts. Even guys like:
Lee Evans
Tommy Harris
Vince Wilfork
Jonathan Vilma
DJ Williams
Will Smith
Steven Jackson
Jason Babin
Chris Gamble
Ben Watson
All had or are having great careers.
And the 1st two picks of the 2nd round?
Karlos Dansby
Chris Snee
An awesome draft
Quarterbacks are made by where and to whom they are drafted.
The best indicator of success for a quarterback in the NFL is the stability of the coaching staff. Which is of course chicken and egg, a coach is going to get more runway if he has a good QB and a ring.
If the Giants can get some order and stability in the organization and not have a half decade of blown drafts, they don't have to pick a top 5 QB to build championship level team.
They need Hernandez to pan out, Solder to play up to his career average, and then add much more talent to the line.
I would have started over and picked Darnold. You don't have to draft the best guy, but it doesn't hurt.
What's the most sad is the organization opted to go with Manning because they believed he still had it and believe in him. Then they went and surrounded him with dog suit on offensive line and they will never know whether they were right.
Quote:
Larry Fitzgerald?
He was the best player in that draft. He is a Hall of Famer. he is probably the 2nd greatest WR in NFL history.
Even if you disagree with that, you would have to agree that is a better WR all-time than Eli, Ben or Rivers are QBs all-time
But would anyone redraft that and take Fitzgerald over Eli, Ben or Rivers?
Ummmm yeah, the Chargers would. They already had Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, and Gates. Fitzgerald over Rivers is the pick in a redraft.
With the benefit of hindsight on Brees' shoulder, sure thing. That's what kept them from extending him and drove them to draft Rivers. Those concerns are also what kept Saban from getting Brees in Miami.
Quote:
In comment 14085934 twostepgiants said:
Quote:
Larry Fitzgerald?
He was the best player in that draft. He is a Hall of Famer. he is probably the 2nd greatest WR in NFL history.
Even if you disagree with that, you would have to agree that is a better WR all-time than Eli, Ben or Rivers are QBs all-time
But would anyone redraft that and take Fitzgerald over Eli, Ben or Rivers?
Ummmm yeah, the Chargers would. They already had Drew Brees, Ladanian Tomlinson, and Gates. Fitzgerald over Rivers is the pick in a redraft.
With the benefit of hindsight on Brees' shoulder, sure thing. That's what kept them from extending him and drove them to draft Rivers. Those concerns are also what kept Saban from getting Brees in Miami.
Rivers was drafted two years before Brees hurt his shoulder. He sat the bench while Brees lit it up for two years.
In fact, Brees's injury saved the Chargers from disaster, as they were going to have to make a very, very hard decision had Brees not injure his shoulder at the end of his contract.
In addition to all the angst Chargers fans have toward Eli, they're still pretty pissed at Schottenheimer for leaving Brees in that game to get injured. IIRC it was a meaningless game for them at the time.
My point wasnt about those specific teams at that time.
My point is that Eli, Ben, Rivers are more valuable players than Fitzgerald even though Fitzgerald is “better” than them. Fitz is clearly a better all-time WR than those guys are all-time QBs and Fitz is a guaranteed HoFer.
Any team needing a QB and a WR, knowing what they know about their careers, would take Eli, Ben and Rivers over Fitzgerald.
Obviously if you already have the QB covered with another Hall of Famer, then you take Fitzgerald.
'The RB' vs 'The QB'
I have said for years - this team 'ain't never' done shit without well above average OL play.
You have 22 or whatever positions and the trade down.
There's s million ways to split it.
They already had $7M invested in Hyde and Johnson. And they got fortunate to grab Chubb in the second round. So they have a sold crop of backs.
And after last night, I doubt we’ll hear Barkley’s name for a while in Cleveland.
The pick of Ward was heavily criticized. But right now, he looks like a huge player on their D. He looks outstanding in single coverage.
Very true. I am with you too.
Whats so interesting? A team that has been rudderless without a decent QB for decades goes QB over a RB with the #1 pick, and then even picks a RB in the next round and its interesting?
why...
This was a great thread but the your not going to know how this draft turned out for another 2-3 years. Right now the team sucks because the OL is playing like complete crap. If you want to point to one thing that has held this team back over the past 5 years. It is the damn OL, and that is not for lack of trying. It just has not worked out. Flowers, Richburg, Pugh, the early demise of Snee. It has been an unmitigated disaster.
I hoped we’d take a QB, but was most high on Mayfield, and felt the others were more of a risk. I’m think DG felt the same.