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.
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.