He's not a great player. Not yet, and maybe not ever.
Not what anyone wants to hear - but the production that would have to accompany calling him great just isn't there. And while I'm willing to cut him slack because of the overall offensive woes, that doesn't mean we can just pretend he's guaranteed greatness.
The first 5 games of his career he has gained over100 yards from scrimmage. Only 2 other players in the history off the game has done that. One had seven and one 5. Yea no production.....
Sorry dude, my bad, didn't mean to speak for everyone. I was just going by the fact that so often I see Herbert's name randomly pop up in BBI discussions when we aren't even talking about the 2019 draft yet. But then again I may be biased because I love me some Herbert and that's probably why I notice it so often. I'm sure there are plenty of people who like Grier as well and I don't claim to be the end-all-be-all expert on which current 19 yr old kid is going to be the next HOF QB. Let's just hope DG and PS know what the hell they're doing and pick the right guy whether its 2019, 2020, hell even 2021, I don't care as long as they get the *right* guy.
Just needling you a bit. There is a strong camp for Herbert. He certainly looks the part physically. I've seen two full games this year and was impressed with his ability to change arm angles to make plays.
A bunch of posters in this thread has pointed out and bitched that the reason the Giants suck right now is that they drafted for need instead of BPA in the past (IE: Flowers). Yet here they drafted the BPA in the whole draft and because they didn't reach (in the Giants mind) for a QB that posters like it's now wrong to draft BPA, it's absurd to see.
And I am sure he will give us many highlight real plays.
I am rooting for him and the team.
I stick by what I said at the time, I don't think RB at 2 is good value especially behind our o-line...
You can have all the skill position players in the world. If you don't have a decent o-line, your offense is going nowhere.
I don't know what offers there really were, but I was a proponent of trading down. I had dreams of picking up Nelson. and one of the tackles, possibly one of the centers...
Imagine if we were able to pick McGlinchey and Ragnow, who both seem to be getting going along with Hernandez.
I know starting 3 rookies would cause some serious growing pains, but imagine how much better we would feel about the o-line, now and in the future, and the team in general right now. Now, I feel we are forever mired down by a completely ineffective o-line. With no end in sight.
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
but I think Barkley just edges it. He really looks like a generational talent at the position so far and that is on a terrible offense.
If I had to wager on a player from this draft class being a hall of famer then it is Barkley. However, it is a very fair critique that Darnold or Allen may be better value in the W column long term.
I do feel there won't be a chance to draft another Barkley whereas QBs like Darnold or Allen will come around again and hence I'd take Barkley.
I'd also say leaving wins and value out of the equation just the joy he brings me watching him is frankly brilliant. I haven't had this much fun watching a losing team ever.
only 3 RBs taken in the first round are no longer playing in the NFL - Bishop Stanley, Trent Richardson and David Wilson. Sankey and Trent are playing, just not in the NFL. Wilson is the only one that isn’t playing due to health.
AP is still playing, Bush only recently retired, McFadden retired last year.
The short shelf life doesn’t apply to top picks at the position. It doesn’t even apply to 2nd round RBs either.
I don’t even watch college ball and the decision Â
was a no-brainer if our QB guru didn’t feel any of the QBs were franchise-worthy. Only question is how he viewed Mayfield. It’s almost that simple. The discussion is so silly, especially at this point in time. But it’s what we’re here for albeit the same RIGID points are beaten ad nauseum
If we passed on a Luck or Peyton, I could understand the continual griping but there wasn't. In the next two drafts there will be available QBs equal to those in this year's draft.
Meanwhile, we get to watch a fantastic football player. That really sucks. Sometimes I wonder why people watch sports.
The only top 10 QB picks to win a Super Bowl this century are the Mannings and Trent Dilfer.
Franchise QBs are way more about where they land and not necessarily when they were drafted.
If you trust Shurmur and Shula, they will be able to build up a guy they pick this year, even if it's not the 2nd pick overall.
That said, it's not going to hurt pairing a good system with the most talented QB. Thankfully some of the middling moves Gettleman made have backfired and the Giants aren't an 8-8 team. Getting one of the best players on each round is a benifit.
RE: Barkley has been better than expected so far Â
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
the OL needed to be fixed no matter what. A rookie QB behind this OL with a sub-par run game and a couple of weapons would have been crap ... a vet SB MVP QB with a talented runner and slightly improved OL (still kinda bad) with some weapons at least give us a shot.
Next yr stage 2 of the OL rebuild will be complete. The QB whoever it turns out to be (Eli/FA/Rookie/Kyle) should have better protection the RB should have better lanes ... and we already have the weapons (a true #2 WR would be nice though). Get 2ndary and LB depth and it is on an popping ...
I think ultimately we'll be happy with the pick, but if one of those QBs becomes part of a generation that performs similar to the Brees/Brady/Rodgers guard, then we'll probably regret it.
But I think we're too quick to assume that's happening. If Darnold/Mayfield/Rosen end up more like the Matt Ryans or Matt Stafford's of today's NFL, I think we'll be very happy with our pick. And that's not a knock on those guys. They're great QBs. But you can pluck a QB late in the first round or off FA and they can have the same success as those guys (maybe not the same numbers).
I don't think you can just get a game-changing RB like that.
So in short, if those QBs become sure-fire Hall of Famers, then yeah, we'll regret it. But I think we all have to appreciate how big an "if" that is.
RE: Barkley has been better than expected so far Â
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
RE: RE: Barkley has been better than expected so far Â
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
Why is it you assume that a change at QB has us losing more games instead of winning more? Especially with a mobile QB, who might offset some of the rush allowed by that porous line?
1. Drafting a QB doesn't guarantee he starts and with Eli still here, I doubt he would've. After a poor start to the season, sure, but not out of the gate.
2. Barkley's averaging >100 yds from scrimmage and 1 TD/game and this team is still struggling to score. You think the combo of Stewart and Gallman would even come close to that?
3. The one win was with Eli going 25-29 297 yds and 2 TDs. Nothing I've seen from Darnold/Rosen/Allen make me believe they would've done that.
1. Drafting a QB doesn't guarantee he starts and with Eli still here, I doubt he would've. After a poor start to the season, sure, but not out of the gate.
2. Barkley's averaging >100 yds from scrimmage and 1 TD/game and this team is still struggling to score. You think the combo of Stewart and Gallman would even come close to that?
3. The one win was with Eli going 25-29 297 yds and 2 TDs. Nothing I've seen from Darnold/Rosen/Allen make me believe they would've done that.
1. Drafting a QB doesn't mean he starts right away, but it also doesn't guarantee they retain Eli.
2. Maybe not - but given the number of times they have to target Barkley, Gallman's production might not have been far off.
3. Fair enough - but that's one game out of 5. And that implies you couldn't beat the Texans with a weaker performance by the QB. The Texans haven't exactly been a powerhouse this season.
last season pretty much guaranteed Eli was returning and starting this season.
That one was the only game the Giants won. I'm not some blind fan that thinks Eli can still produce like his prime with better OL (hi dep!), but he's completed >70% of his passes and thrown only 2 INTs. I believe Darnold has been the best of the 3 and he's completing 55% of his passes with 6 INTs. And it's not like he's scrambling for big first downs. He has 13 yds on 13 rushes.
Allen's made some plays with his feet, but he's looked as advertised throwing the ball.
I really don't see anyway the Giants would be better with one of the rookie QBs this season. Long term? I can see this argument, but this year would be dreadful.
RE: RE: Barkley has been better than expected so far Â
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
Dude - Do you watch football? Rookie RB is the biggest impact position around. Have you heard of Kamara and Hunt?
Is 0-5 really that much worse than 1-4? Stewart is out for the year injured, so we would be watching Wayne Gallman (BTW, he plays for the Giants), who is actually pretty good.
Finally, Rookie QBs don't take "several years", but continue on with your babbling.
Dude - Do you watch football? Rookie RB is the biggest impact position around. Have you heard of Kamara and Hunt?
Is 0-5 really that much worse than 1-4? Stewart is out for the year injured, so we would be watching Wayne Gallman (BTW, he plays for the Giants), who is actually pretty good.
Finally, Rookie QBs don't take "several years", but continue on with your babbling.
Stewart was healthy games 1-3, hence why he'd start 3 games (or at least see considerable action).
Gallman's a decent backup, but he's not in Barkley's league.
Chiefs lost 2 more games last year than 2016, so by your logic Hunt was a shitty pick.
RE: RE: RE: Barkley has been better than expected so far Â
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
Dude - Do you watch football? Rookie RB is the biggest impact position around. Have you heard of Kamara and Hunt?
Is 0-5 really that much worse than 1-4? Stewart is out for the year injured, so we would be watching Wayne Gallman (BTW, he plays for the Giants), who is actually pretty good.
Finally, Rookie QBs don't take "several years", but continue on with your babbling.
So you're ready to declare Darnold/Rosen/Allen finished projects? If that's the case, I'm thrilled we avoided them!
Bortles looked like an ascending QB after year 2 (4400+ yds, ~35 TDs).
Winston was the next great QB after starting his career with back-to-back >4000 yd seasons.
Carr was made one of the highest paid QBs after his 3rd season and it's been downhill (fast) since then.
Prescott looked great year 1, I wouldn't be giving him anything close to franchise money now.
I would have taken Chubb ... Non-existent pass rush problem solved. I think that would have made a bigger impact on THIS season than Barkley. He is awesome, but lack of pass rush is crippling this defense.
So you're ready to declare Darnold/Rosen/Allen finished projects? If that's the case, I'm thrilled we avoided them!
Bortles looked like an ascending QB after year 2 (4400+ yds, ~35 TDs).
Winston was the next great QB after starting his career with back-to-back >4000 yd seasons.
Carr was made one of the highest paid QBs after his 3rd season and it's been downhill (fast) since then.
Prescott looked great year 1, I wouldn't be giving him anything close to franchise money now.
I guess you like to ramble on and on and don't comprehend what folks actually type? Not sure how sitting behind Eli for a year declares a rookie QB as a "finished product"?
Yes, I think both Darnold and Rosen will be Franchise QBs in the league. So far they look the part.
Dak was a 4th round pick that no one really believed in. They should have put Romo back in, they would have won the Superbowl. Car was a second round pick. Neither fit in this conversation.
I was never a Bortles or Winston fan.
How do Goff and Wentz look?
He’s very clearly the best performer RIGHT NOW. That said, this team is mired in the basement with or without him and no matter how good he is if I’m 3 years the Giants are pathetic at QB and Josh Rosen is awesome then it will have been a blown pick. Barkley is lights out though. Maybe the most impressive rookie I’ve ever seen
He’s very clearly the best performer RIGHT NOW. That said, this team is mired in the basement with or without him and no matter how good he is if I’m 3 years the Giants are pathetic at QB and Josh Rosen is awesome then it will have been a blown pick. Barkley is lights out though. Maybe the most impressive rookie I’ve ever seen
He’s very clearly the best performer RIGHT NOW. That said, this team is mired in the basement with or without him and no matter how good he is if I’m 3 years the Giants are pathetic at QB and Josh Rosen is awesome then it will have been a blown pick. Barkley is lights out though. Maybe the most impressive rookie I’ve ever seen
Now with 6 games over 100. And making plays NOBODY makes in the NFL right now.
Yet here we are losing to a poor eagles team at home and staring at 1-5 with arguably the worst qb situation in the league. No doubt he’s fantastic, but unless he can throw, he’s not gonna be able to do enough.
He’s very clearly the best performer RIGHT NOW. That said, this team is mired in the basement with or without him and no matter how good he is if I’m 3 years the Giants are pathetic at QB and Josh Rosen is awesome then it will have been a blown pick. Barkley is lights out though. Maybe the most impressive rookie I’ve ever seen
You obviously never saw LT.
you're correct. I started watching the Giants in 1995 as a 10 year old.
We take someone besides Barkley and the QBs. The quarterbacks after Mayfield were not great prospects. Saddling yourself with the wrong developmental QB is more damaging than some of you guys are willing to admit and drafting high is not going to a problem for this team for another year or two.
Eli was still pretty damn good 5 years ago and we've all seen what we've accomplished as a team since then without an offensive line and a pass rush.
The Giants have the worst OL in football. So long as that remains true Â
Ah, but Dan Marino played in one and was a significant part of a very competitive team for many years. Barry's teams were competitive in
really only one year.
RE: And for the people saying simply that Barkley was the best prospect Â
That wasn't the consensus (at least on this board and many draft sites) before the draft. He was absolutely in the top group, but the discussion revolved around him being one of several (6-7) blue chips at the top of the draft.
And I don't believe his being "the most talented prospect" was the only consideration. I've asked this question in the past and I'll ask it again:
If Eli Manning had retired after the 2017 season who would the Giants have drafted?
I'd bet my mortgage they'd have drafted Darnold.
Actually, DG was quoted somewhere saying he would have drafted Josh Allen.
Nomad - please document DG’s comment about Allen. Â
There were no Peyton in that draft. No Brees. No Luck. There were talented qbs in that draft, just like any year. It's just that there were more than the average number of them.
As for Barkley, he is not your average high-level running back. This is a guy who get once a decade, at best. To quote Ernie Accorsi in his scouting report of Eli, "These guys are rare, you know."
How many players five games into their careers can you legit say “this guy has a good chance to be a hall of fame”. Barkley is THAT good, and that rare. I don’t care what position he plays. As a fan of the franchise, I’m happy. Would I prefer a hall of fame QB, come on, what kind of question is that.
Who was available at #2 at this point you look at and say “this guy is a legit all pro”? We drafted the best PLAYER who was available when we picked.
You don’t rebuild a team overnight. Drafting superstars is not a bad start...
The problem is having the top or a top RB in the league in this era doesn't mean much when it comes to winning and losing, especially in the playoffs.
Adrian Peterson and LDT were once a decade type RBs, yet the only year he even sniffed the playoffs was when Brett Favre came and turned the clock back that one year. Outside of that, Peterson's teams were never super bowl contenders. Tomlinson never played in a super bowl, either.
Look at the teams that have won Super Bowls in the last decade. Which one had a top running back? No matter how many times DG says that analytics about RB value are a crock, he's wrong.
Peter King said that DG is a dinosaur when it comes to scouting and drafting in today's NFL. It certainly seems like that is the case
How many players five games into their careers can you legit say “this guy has a good chance to be a hall of fame”. Barkley is THAT good, and that rare. I don’t care what position he plays. As a fan of the franchise, I’m happy. Would I prefer a hall of fame QB, come on, what kind of question is that.
Who was available at #2 at this point you look at and say “this guy is a legit all pro”? We drafted the best PLAYER who was available when we picked.
You don’t rebuild a team overnight. Drafting superstars is not a bad start...
Tomlinson and AP were that type of player. Neither one had much team success, especially in the playoffs. For the most part, a running backs best days are behind them by age 27-28. That scares the hell out of me when the Giants are years away from contending. Until they actually get a franchise QB, it doesn't matter what else they do, they will not be a contender.
Barkley's prime started game 1. Every year that the Giants suck, and make no mistake this team is at least 2 more years away from even thinking about being a contender, is a wasted year of Barkley's prime.
A franchise QB in today's NFL is worth significantly more than a hall of fame running back is. You don't have to be a hall of fame quarterback to be worth much more than a hall of fame running back
Not what anyone wants to hear - but the production that would have to accompany calling him great just isn't there. And while I'm willing to cut him slack because of the overall offensive woes, that doesn't mean we can just pretend he's guaranteed greatness.
The first 5 games of his career he has gained over100 yards from scrimmage. Only 2 other players in the history off the game has done that. One had seven and one 5. Yea no production.....
You would take the 10th best guard over Barkley and also 300 NFL players over him (10 players on every team?)
No you wouldn’t.
Sorry dude, my bad, didn't mean to speak for everyone. I was just going by the fact that so often I see Herbert's name randomly pop up in BBI discussions when we aren't even talking about the 2019 draft yet. But then again I may be biased because I love me some Herbert and that's probably why I notice it so often. I'm sure there are plenty of people who like Grier as well and I don't claim to be the end-all-be-all expert on which current 19 yr old kid is going to be the next HOF QB. Let's just hope DG and PS know what the hell they're doing and pick the right guy whether its 2019, 2020, hell even 2021, I don't care as long as they get the *right* guy.
Just needling you a bit. There is a strong camp for Herbert. He certainly looks the part physically. I've seen two full games this year and was impressed with his ability to change arm angles to make plays.
I am rooting for him and the team.
I stick by what I said at the time, I don't think RB at 2 is good value especially behind our o-line...
You can have all the skill position players in the world. If you don't have a decent o-line, your offense is going nowhere.
I don't know what offers there really were, but I was a proponent of trading down. I had dreams of picking up Nelson. and one of the tackles, possibly one of the centers...
I will say Hernandez looks solid.
I know starting 3 rookies would cause some serious growing pains, but imagine how much better we would feel about the o-line, now and in the future, and the team in general right now. Now, I feel we are forever mired down by a completely ineffective o-line. With no end in sight.
Quote:
the way people dig in.
Barkley has "some talent" and Darnold is the Jets QB for 15 years.
Fucking madness.
almost ponderous...
Lol!!!!
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
If I had to wager on a player from this draft class being a hall of famer then it is Barkley. However, it is a very fair critique that Darnold or Allen may be better value in the W column long term.
I do feel there won't be a chance to draft another Barkley whereas QBs like Darnold or Allen will come around again and hence I'd take Barkley.
I'd also say leaving wins and value out of the equation just the joy he brings me watching him is frankly brilliant. I haven't had this much fun watching a losing team ever.
AP is still playing, Bush only recently retired, McFadden retired last year.
The short shelf life doesn’t apply to top picks at the position. It doesn’t even apply to 2nd round RBs either.
Meanwhile, we get to watch a fantastic football player. That really sucks. Sometimes I wonder why people watch sports.
Franchise QBs are way more about where they land and not necessarily when they were drafted.
If you trust Shurmur and Shula, they will be able to build up a guy they pick this year, even if it's not the 2nd pick overall.
That said, it's not going to hurt pairing a good system with the most talented QB. Thankfully some of the middling moves Gettleman made have backfired and the Giants aren't an 8-8 team. Getting one of the best players on each round is a benifit.
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
Ereck Flowers.
Next yr stage 2 of the OL rebuild will be complete. The QB whoever it turns out to be (Eli/FA/Rookie/Kyle) should have better protection the RB should have better lanes ... and we already have the weapons (a true #2 WR would be nice though). Get 2ndary and LB depth and it is on an popping ...
But I think we're too quick to assume that's happening. If Darnold/Mayfield/Rosen end up more like the Matt Ryans or Matt Stafford's of today's NFL, I think we'll be very happy with our pick. And that's not a knock on those guys. They're great QBs. But you can pluck a QB late in the first round or off FA and they can have the same success as those guys (maybe not the same numbers).
I don't think you can just get a game-changing RB like that.
So in short, if those QBs become sure-fire Hall of Famers, then yeah, we'll regret it. But I think we all have to appreciate how big an "if" that is.
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
Quote:
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
Why is it you assume that a change at QB has us losing more games instead of winning more? Especially with a mobile QB, who might offset some of the rush allowed by that porous line?
2. Barkley's averaging >100 yds from scrimmage and 1 TD/game and this team is still struggling to score. You think the combo of Stewart and Gallman would even come close to that?
3. The one win was with Eli going 25-29 297 yds and 2 TDs. Nothing I've seen from Darnold/Rosen/Allen make me believe they would've done that.
2. Barkley's averaging >100 yds from scrimmage and 1 TD/game and this team is still struggling to score. You think the combo of Stewart and Gallman would even come close to that?
3. The one win was with Eli going 25-29 297 yds and 2 TDs. Nothing I've seen from Darnold/Rosen/Allen make me believe they would've done that.
1. Drafting a QB doesn't mean he starts right away, but it also doesn't guarantee they retain Eli.
2. Maybe not - but given the number of times they have to target Barkley, Gallman's production might not have been far off.
3. Fair enough - but that's one game out of 5. And that implies you couldn't beat the Texans with a weaker performance by the QB. The Texans haven't exactly been a powerhouse this season.
That one was the only game the Giants won. I'm not some blind fan that thinks Eli can still produce like his prime with better OL (hi dep!), but he's completed >70% of his passes and thrown only 2 INTs. I believe Darnold has been the best of the 3 and he's completing 55% of his passes with 6 INTs. And it's not like he's scrambling for big first downs. He has 13 yds on 13 rushes.
Allen's made some plays with his feet, but he's looked as advertised throwing the ball.
I really don't see anyway the Giants would be better with one of the rookie QBs this season. Long term? I can see this argument, but this year would be dreadful.
Quote:
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
Dude - Do you watch football? Rookie RB is the biggest impact position around. Have you heard of Kamara and Hunt?
Is 0-5 really that much worse than 1-4? Stewart is out for the year injured, so we would be watching Wayne Gallman (BTW, he plays for the Giants), who is actually pretty good.
Finally, Rookie QBs don't take "several years", but continue on with your babbling.
Dude - Do you watch football? Rookie RB is the biggest impact position around. Have you heard of Kamara and Hunt?
Is 0-5 really that much worse than 1-4? Stewart is out for the year injured, so we would be watching Wayne Gallman (BTW, he plays for the Giants), who is actually pretty good.
Finally, Rookie QBs don't take "several years", but continue on with your babbling.
Stewart was healthy games 1-3, hence why he'd start 3 games (or at least see considerable action).
Gallman's a decent backup, but he's not in Barkley's league.
Chiefs lost 2 more games last year than 2016, so by your logic Hunt was a shitty pick.
Quote:
In comment 14118516 ZogZerg said:
Quote:
However, I would still rather they picked a QB - Josh Rosen (or even Darnold).
The 2 studds - Beckham and Barkley - have the Giants at 1-4.
I'd rather the Giants be in position do dump Eli next year, free up 19 million, sign a few quality players in FA, and roll out a young, future, QB that had year to learn and grow under Eli. Instead, we have no future QB moving forward and a disaster year on hand. Future looks like the present, a big mess.
That's faulty logic. With Darnold/Rosen we're probably sitting at 0-5 and would've had to watch Jonathan Stewart starting for 3 games!
Why is Barkley expected to immediately turn around a 3 win team, but a rookie QB is allowed several years?
Dude - Do you watch football? Rookie RB is the biggest impact position around. Have you heard of Kamara and Hunt?
Is 0-5 really that much worse than 1-4? Stewart is out for the year injured, so we would be watching Wayne Gallman (BTW, he plays for the Giants), who is actually pretty good.
Finally, Rookie QBs don't take "several years", but continue on with your babbling.
So you're ready to declare Darnold/Rosen/Allen finished projects? If that's the case, I'm thrilled we avoided them!
Bortles looked like an ascending QB after year 2 (4400+ yds, ~35 TDs).
Winston was the next great QB after starting his career with back-to-back >4000 yd seasons.
Carr was made one of the highest paid QBs after his 3rd season and it's been downhill (fast) since then.
Prescott looked great year 1, I wouldn't be giving him anything close to franchise money now.
Picture the offense without Barkley.
Just double Beckham all game. This team would never score.
So you're ready to declare Darnold/Rosen/Allen finished projects? If that's the case, I'm thrilled we avoided them!
Bortles looked like an ascending QB after year 2 (4400+ yds, ~35 TDs).
Winston was the next great QB after starting his career with back-to-back >4000 yd seasons.
Carr was made one of the highest paid QBs after his 3rd season and it's been downhill (fast) since then.
Prescott looked great year 1, I wouldn't be giving him anything close to franchise money now.
I guess you like to ramble on and on and don't comprehend what folks actually type? Not sure how sitting behind Eli for a year declares a rookie QB as a "finished product"?
Yes, I think both Darnold and Rosen will be Franchise QBs in the league. So far they look the part.
Dak was a 4th round pick that no one really believed in. They should have put Romo back in, they would have won the Superbowl. Car was a second round pick. Neither fit in this conversation.
I was never a Bortles or Winston fan.
How do Goff and Wentz look?
You obviously never saw LT.
Quote:
He’s very clearly the best performer RIGHT NOW. That said, this team is mired in the basement with or without him and no matter how good he is if I’m 3 years the Giants are pathetic at QB and Josh Rosen is awesome then it will have been a blown pick. Barkley is lights out though. Maybe the most impressive rookie I’ve ever seen
You obviously never saw LT.
Or Barry Sanders. Or Randy Moss.
Yet here we are losing to a poor eagles team at home and staring at 1-5 with arguably the worst qb situation in the league. No doubt he’s fantastic, but unless he can throw, he’s not gonna be able to do enough.
Quote:
He’s very clearly the best performer RIGHT NOW. That said, this team is mired in the basement with or without him and no matter how good he is if I’m 3 years the Giants are pathetic at QB and Josh Rosen is awesome then it will have been a blown pick. Barkley is lights out though. Maybe the most impressive rookie I’ve ever seen
You obviously never saw LT.
Eli was still pretty damn good 5 years ago and we've all seen what we've accomplished as a team since then without an offensive line and a pass rush.
Quote:
how many SBs did Barry Sanders win again?
As many as Dan Marino.
Ah, but Dan Marino played in one and was a significant part of a very competitive team for many years. Barry's teams were competitive in
really only one year.
And I don't believe his being "the most talented prospect" was the only consideration. I've asked this question in the past and I'll ask it again:
If Eli Manning had retired after the 2017 season who would the Giants have drafted?
I'd bet my mortgage they'd have drafted Darnold.
Actually, DG was quoted somewhere saying he would have drafted Josh Allen.
As for Barkley, he is not your average high-level running back. This is a guy who get once a decade, at best. To quote Ernie Accorsi in his scouting report of Eli, "These guys are rare, you know."
So we have to see what DG's plan is, cause I'm 100% sure it wasn't to go 1-5.
If DG drafts a winner at QB this year or somehow Lauletta turns into Superman, it was perhaps an alltime great pick.
How many players five games into their careers can you legit say “this guy has a good chance to be a hall of fame”. Barkley is THAT good, and that rare. I don’t care what position he plays. As a fan of the franchise, I’m happy. Would I prefer a hall of fame QB, come on, what kind of question is that.
Who was available at #2 at this point you look at and say “this guy is a legit all pro”? We drafted the best PLAYER who was available when we picked.
You don’t rebuild a team overnight. Drafting superstars is not a bad start...
He is a special, once a decade type running back.
The problem is having the top or a top RB in the league in this era doesn't mean much when it comes to winning and losing, especially in the playoffs.
Adrian Peterson and LDT were once a decade type RBs, yet the only year he even sniffed the playoffs was when Brett Favre came and turned the clock back that one year. Outside of that, Peterson's teams were never super bowl contenders. Tomlinson never played in a super bowl, either.
Look at the teams that have won Super Bowls in the last decade. Which one had a top running back? No matter how many times DG says that analytics about RB value are a crock, he's wrong.
Peter King said that DG is a dinosaur when it comes to scouting and drafting in today's NFL. It certainly seems like that is the case
How many players five games into their careers can you legit say “this guy has a good chance to be a hall of fame”. Barkley is THAT good, and that rare. I don’t care what position he plays. As a fan of the franchise, I’m happy. Would I prefer a hall of fame QB, come on, what kind of question is that.
Who was available at #2 at this point you look at and say “this guy is a legit all pro”? We drafted the best PLAYER who was available when we picked.
You don’t rebuild a team overnight. Drafting superstars is not a bad start...
Tomlinson and AP were that type of player. Neither one had much team success, especially in the playoffs. For the most part, a running backs best days are behind them by age 27-28. That scares the hell out of me when the Giants are years away from contending. Until they actually get a franchise QB, it doesn't matter what else they do, they will not be a contender.
Barkley's prime started game 1. Every year that the Giants suck, and make no mistake this team is at least 2 more years away from even thinking about being a contender, is a wasted year of Barkley's prime.
A franchise QB in today's NFL is worth significantly more than a hall of fame running back is. You don't have to be a hall of fame quarterback to be worth much more than a hall of fame running back