and it was deleted (not sure why but probably because he was getting killed). But I don't think that is a bad idea necessarily. I don't think you do it to tank a season, but I do think with rbs and their short life spans as premier players, teams should look to conserve carries in meaningless football games, akin to what baseball teams do with Pitchers. As long as we are still not eliminated, I have no issue playing Barkley however Shurmur thinks he should be played, but I also think its worth analyzing whether we could elongate his career or any running backs career for that matter when the games are not meaningful or there is little rational purpose in playing them. Could we get another year or two at near peak performance if we did it. I know football teams as a general rule, play you normally if your healthy unless resting for the playoffs, but I would hope the analytic guys in the NFL are asking these types of questions, especially as it pertains to running backs.
The Giants will have an opportunity to pick a good QB this year, and Barkley won't disappear in 10 months.
But look at Gurley, he's not the player he was year one, all things considered. The team, line, coach etc. all are much improved. But from a physical perspective a RB is like a car coming off the lot.
All things considered - like he's having the best season of his career?
Averaging 4.8 ypc...tied for his best mark
11 total TDs...on pace for his best mark
11.8 yards/rec...2nd best mark and well above his rookie season
The Giants will have an opportunity to pick a good QB this year, and Barkley won't disappear in 10 months.
But look at Gurley, he's not the player he was year one, all things considered. The team, line, coach etc. all are much improved. But from a physical perspective a RB is like a car coming off the lot.
All things considered - like he's having the best season of his career?
Averaging 4.8 ypc...tied for his best mark
11 total TDs...on pace for his best mark
11.8 yards/rec...2nd best mark and well above his rookie season
Yes all things considered. The offensive line, overall talent, quarterback and coaching is orders of magnitude better now.
Gurley's rookie season quite literally changed how the league viewed darfting running backs.
Zero doubt in my mind the rookie version of Gurley would eclipse today's version statistically.
The Giants will have an opportunity to pick a good QB this year, and Barkley won't disappear in 10 months.
But look at Gurley, he's not the player he was year one, all things considered. The team, line, coach etc. all are much improved. But from a physical perspective a RB is like a car coming off the lot.
In what way is Gurley not the same player than he was after his rookie year?
then lets always tell the truth. Although we like the fact that Max is saying nice things about Barkley... he does not know shit about football. He should stick to boxing.
Just remember this next week when he says something about the Giants that we dont like.
You can practically telegraph some of the responses on here. Â
The same people who spent all offseason bitching and moaning because the Giants didn't draft a QB are now entirely incapable of just being able to appreciate Barkley's talent. They have to come into every discussion and moan about how meaningless his talent is because the team is going nowhere, as if its going to turn back time to April and replace Barkley with Darnold or Rosen.
Yes, we know the team is going nowhere. Watching Barkley is about the only thing worth tuning in for at this point.
while at the same time wanting to declare Barkley the best in the NFL and the next Sanders.
They're both short-sighted. Right now, Barkley is very impressive - he's had some great runs. It's clear he could be one of the best, if not the best in the NFL, if he had the surrounding cast.
But the same way people preach patience, that the QB position will be resolved, posters need to understand Barkley's not there yet. OBJ opened up his career in an even more impressive manner, and now we are where we are.
Until the offensive performance gets settled out - it's all good, not great. The notion that 'he's the only thing entertaining on the Giants right now' - well, duh. They stink. Again, OBJ redux.
We need to get out of 'good/great individual performances' and back to actually winning football games.
Won't commit to the run game. Go old school style football. Play ball control. Boring football, but own the clock and the rock. Instead we go out of Shot gun all the time.
and the Vikings had some of the worst QBs in the league while AP was there:
Tavaris Jackson
Gus Frerotte
40 year old Favre - AP carried them to NFC Championship
41 year old Favre
Christian Ponder x3
Bridgewater x2 - AP hurt his rookie season, playoffs year 2
When a 40 year old Favre is the best QB you play with, you're not going to go very far. I hope the Giants can find someone at least that good to pair with Barkley.
Whether it's for 1 year or longterm - Barkley is my first pick. I don't see other backs doing what he is doing with no help whatsoever. Kamara and Gurley are in the equation and you can make an argument for either, but I'm taking Barkley if you're asking me to pick my RB. That makes him the best back in football in my view.
while at the same time wanting to declare Barkley the best in the NFL and the next Sanders.
They're both short-sighted. Right now, Barkley is very impressive - he's had some great runs. It's clear he could be one of the best, if not the best in the NFL, if he had the surrounding cast.
But the same way people preach patience, that the QB position will be resolved, posters need to understand Barkley's not there yet. OBJ opened up his career in an even more impressive manner, and now we are where we are.
Until the offensive performance gets settled out - it's all good, not great. The notion that 'he's the only thing entertaining on the Giants right now' - well, duh. They stink. Again, OBJ redux.
We need to get out of 'good/great individual performances' and back to actually winning football games.
I'll take what I can get. The giants suck, but I have no control over that, so again I'll take what I can get. I've started to realize for me the best way I can approach giants football is to be entertained. That is the reason why I watch sports in the first place. To each their own, I certainly do not have any right to suggest how people should handle their sports. For me it's much healthier and more enjoyable to treat it as entertainment, which it really is in respect to the real issues that we deal with in life.
Btw, I'm a patience preacher, which of course I've been mocked for, but again to each their own.
RE: RE: The Vikings had the best RB in the league Â
That said, who wouldn’t want a 15 year QB? They are not a dime a dozen, however
Taking it a step further, here are active "franchise" QBs with no rings:
Matt Ryan
Kirk Cousins
Matt Stafford
Derek Carr
Andrew Luck
Philip Rivers
Cam Newton
Ryan Tannehill
Andy Dalton
Jimmy Garoppolo
Even worse, I believe the group above has just two SB appearances between them and I think 5 conference championship appearances (Ryan x2, Newton, Rivers, Luck).
Now, paying some of those guys like franchise QBs was likely a mistake (Tannehill, Dalton, Garoppolo, Carr), but the odds of drafting a Ryan/Stafford/Rivers level QB are low and as the above show, even if you get that guy, odds of him carrying you to a title are even lower.
Football is a team game and its rare you can get a player with Barkley's ability. Now build a team around him including (hopefully) an above average QB and they'll be in the running more than not.
RE: RE: RE: The Vikings had the best RB in the league Â
John Elway had a very strong season in 1997. He fell off in 98, but TD didn't carry Elway to the first ring. That was a good offense all the way around, including at QB.
Now 98 is as good of a season as a RB has ever had for TD. Many QBs would have gotten very far there.
we know this is a team game. What fans want is to at least have a shot every year. Make the playoffs consistently because your team can get hot and get on a roll at the end.
There are some QBs who do not give you a chance to be in the playoffs consistently.
RE: RE: RE: RE: The Vikings had the best RB in the league Â
while at the same time wanting to declare Barkley the best in the NFL and the next Sanders.
They're both short-sighted. Right now, Barkley is very impressive - he's had some great runs. It's clear he could be one of the best, if not the best in the NFL, if he had the surrounding cast.
But the same way people preach patience, that the QB position will be resolved, posters need to understand Barkley's not there yet. OBJ opened up his career in an even more impressive manner, and now we are where we are.
Until the offensive performance gets settled out - it's all good, not great. The notion that 'he's the only thing entertaining on the Giants right now' - well, duh. They stink. Again, OBJ redux.
We need to get out of 'good/great individual performances' and back to actually winning football games.
I disagree, I think Barkley is there. This isn't a yet debate, he's arrived and he's an ever better pro than he was collegiate player despite the horrendous OL he rushes behind.
As for Beckham we are where we are because of many reasons none of which seem to be at all relateable to Barkley. There have completely different personalities, they play different positions, 1 is QB dependant the other isn't. On and on and on.
Not sure why I have to wait to say Barkley is here. He fucking is here and he's our best player. I don't need to see 10, 20 or 50 more games to come to that conclusion.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Vikings had the best RB in the league Â
Who said that? I think if you fix the OL and add an average QB to this team (e.g. Alex Smith), you'd have a consistent playoff contender.
Add an elite QB and you have the Saints offense.
And that's really the crux of it. I know everyone wants the next 15 year starter, but in reality, there's many other ways to win. We don't need a superstar QB. We need someone who's capable of playing in today's NFL - good pocket movement, maybe some wheels to escape pressure, and accuracy.
What happens when Brady, Brees and Rodgers retire? We are going to have a pretty wide open field of QB's and a lot of new faces in the Superbowl each year.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Vikings had the best RB in the league Â
Who said that? I think if you fix the OL and add an average QB to this team (e.g. Alex Smith), you'd have a consistent playoff contender.
Add an elite QB and you have the Saints offense.
And that's really the crux of it. I know everyone wants the next 15 year starter, but in reality, there's many other ways to win. We don't need a superstar QB. We need someone who's capable of playing in today's NFL - good pocket movement, maybe some wheels to escape pressure, and accuracy.
What happens when Brady, Brees and Rodgers retire? We are going to have a pretty wide open field of QB's and a lot of new faces in the Superbowl each year.
Well, Brees and Rodgers rarely make the SB, so we really just need Brady (or BB) to retire and we'll get an even more wide open field! :-)
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The Vikings had the best RB in the league Â
RBs are nice, but they one of the most over-valued positions because the RB Tree is always in season and producing more than enough to go around.
I could argue kickers are more valuable in today's game.
If Barkley's style - and he's enormously entertaining - is good medication to get you through another miserable season than God bless you. But in the end, there are a lot of solutions at the RB position and it's usually not a position that is going to produce a ton more wins.
RBs are nice, but they one of the most over-valued positions because the RB Tree is always in season and producing more than enough to go around.
I could argue kickers are more valuable in today's game.
If Barkley's style - and he's enormously entertaining - is good medication to get you through another miserable season than God bless you. But in the end, there are a lot of solutions at the RB position and it's usually not a position that is going to produce a ton more wins.
And your biggest mistake is just calling him an RB. Its hard to take your view seriously. He's an elite weapon that changes games. If we weren't brain dead on defense and had a pulse on either the OL or at QB we'd probably have a winning record right now. And that would squarely be because he's that fucking good.
RBs are nice, but they one of the most over-valued positions because the RB Tree is always in season and producing more than enough to go around.
I could argue kickers are more valuable in today's game.
If Barkley's style - and he's enormously entertaining - is good medication to get you through another miserable season than God bless you. But in the end, there are a lot of solutions at the RB position and it's usually not a position that is going to produce a ton more wins.
Please do. I could use a good laugh!
So we have the Best Back and Best Receiver in Football Â
for a decade. The Lions had the best RB in the league for a decade. Who are two of the handful of teams that have never won a super bowl? Hmmmm.
I'm not saying it's not great to have him, but if we can't get the rest of the house in order, it will be a wasted asset.
Jim Brown won a championship with crap at QB.
Emmitt Smith anchored several championship offenses.
Marshawn Lynch carried a Seahawks offense to a SB title.
Terrell Davis carried Elway and the Broncos to 2 titles.
Faulk was the heart & soul of the greatest show on turf.
Dan Marino has 0 rings.
Philip Rivers has 0 rings.
Elway has no rings without TD.
Rodgers/Brees - arguably 2 of the top 10 QBs all time have 2 rings combined.
Warren Moon has no rings.
Exactly, it takes a team. People thinking a QB is the silver bullet are mistaken. The Rams did it by getting a top RB, a good QB (but not top QB), and a top DL
Andrew Luck is the best prospect to come out of the draft.... Â
at staying objective when it comes to NYG and the NFL...in discussions like this. NYG has always been my childhood team but I am a scout/NFL fan first. That said...right now I rank NFL running backs like this:
I give you a lot of credit on Kamara, you were on him. I would love to read what you wrote on him again. I agreed and drafted him for my fantasy team last year. I bought an an X Box one X with the winnings :) This year I am winning my league on the strength of Michel. Saw too many similarities to ignore. Going to a good team, with an accurate QB that likes to throw to backs. Figured little Bill would be all in because he almost never gets negative yards and runs between the tackles, always falls forward. It wont be long you have to put Michel in there.
RE: RE: RE: Andrew Luck is the best prospect to come out of the draft.... Â
He's on a crappy team and roster and can't do it by himself.
All things considered (his team, his recent injury, etc) the guy is actually playing pretty damn well this year.
And they are still 1-5. He is better than that, but they are 1-5.
Proof they should've drafted a RB. Wasted the #1 overall pick on a QB when they could've drafted a RB, which would've guaranteed long term success and shown that the FO actually had a plan to turn things around.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Andrew Luck is the best prospect to come out of the draft.... Â
He's on a crappy team and roster and can't do it by himself.
All things considered (his team, his recent injury, etc) the guy is actually playing pretty damn well this year.
And they are still 1-5. He is better than that, but they are 1-5.
Proof they should've drafted a RB. Wasted the #1 overall pick on a QB when they could've drafted a RB, which would've guaranteed long term success and shown that the FO actually had a plan to turn things around.
There has not been a prospect of Luck's caliber since 2012.
If Andrew Luck had been there in this draft, they would have taken him over Barkley.
at those claiming "we'd be 1-5 without Barkley so he was a bad pick..."
I agree that if they thought one of Darnold/Rosen/Allen was a franchise QB, he would've been the pick. And forget about a Luck-level talent, those guys come along every decade or two at best (he was supposedly the best since Peyton), if there was a Cam Newton level QB prospect they would've taken him over Barkley.
And of course, having the #2 pick, they would've needed 2 prospects at that level!
I get the fact that you want to get the best talent out there. The Giants brass made a calculated decision in going forward in the future. We all knew this team had and remains to have a lot of holes to fill. Can someone tell me if Sam Darnold would help this team now or lead Giants to the SB in 3 to 4 years? The same question could be applied to Barkley. My point is that this whole argument that the Giants should have taken a QB is a waste of time. Let's argue about this in 3 to 4 years when the Giants have more opportunities to build on what the team has and will have and that's including in addressing O-Line and QB situation. We can argue about the defensive side also. Right now, Barkley appears to be a great start.
His positions were usually well thought out and he's a Giants fan. However, lately he sways with the wind. He makes points and then turns around and contradicts his previous argument in the next discussion. I loved that Smith called him out on it.
makes a young QB's job much easier. That's why guys like Prescott, Wilson, Mahomes (he's got talent everywhere), Goff, etc all had early success.
A good offensive line and a strong running game never hurt any rookie QB coming in. However, there are plenty of examples of promising QB's getting ruined by not having those things.
I was indifferent during the draft. I was fine with going QB Â
But look at Gurley, he's not the player he was year one, all things considered. The team, line, coach etc. all are much improved. But from a physical perspective a RB is like a car coming off the lot.
All things considered - like he's having the best season of his career?
Averaging 4.8 ypc...tied for his best mark
11 total TDs...on pace for his best mark
11.8 yards/rec...2nd best mark and well above his rookie season
Quote:
The Giants will have an opportunity to pick a good QB this year, and Barkley won't disappear in 10 months.
But look at Gurley, he's not the player he was year one, all things considered. The team, line, coach etc. all are much improved. But from a physical perspective a RB is like a car coming off the lot.
All things considered - like he's having the best season of his career?
Averaging 4.8 ypc...tied for his best mark
11 total TDs...on pace for his best mark
11.8 yards/rec...2nd best mark and well above his rookie season
Yes all things considered. The offensive line, overall talent, quarterback and coaching is orders of magnitude better now.
Gurley's rookie season quite literally changed how the league viewed darfting running backs.
Zero doubt in my mind the rookie version of Gurley would eclipse today's version statistically.
But look at Gurley, he's not the player he was year one, all things considered. The team, line, coach etc. all are much improved. But from a physical perspective a RB is like a car coming off the lot.
In what way is Gurley not the same player than he was after his rookie year?
I'm not saying it's not great to have him, but if we can't get the rest of the house in order, it will be a wasted asset.
Just remember this next week when he says something about the Giants that we dont like.
Yes, we know the team is going nowhere. Watching Barkley is about the only thing worth tuning in for at this point.
And I've been around a long time.
If they can keep him in one piece, fast lane HOF.
I'm not saying it's not great to have him, but if we can't get the rest of the house in order, it will be a wasted asset.
Jim Brown won a championship with crap at QB.
Emmitt Smith anchored several championship offenses.
Marshawn Lynch carried a Seahawks offense to a SB title.
Terrell Davis carried Elway and the Broncos to 2 titles.
Faulk was the heart & soul of the greatest show on turf.
Dan Marino has 0 rings.
Philip Rivers has 0 rings.
Elway has no rings without TD.
Rodgers/Brees - arguably 2 of the top 10 QBs all time have 2 rings combined.
Warren Moon has no rings.
They're both short-sighted. Right now, Barkley is very impressive - he's had some great runs. It's clear he could be one of the best, if not the best in the NFL, if he had the surrounding cast.
But the same way people preach patience, that the QB position will be resolved, posters need to understand Barkley's not there yet. OBJ opened up his career in an even more impressive manner, and now we are where we are.
Until the offensive performance gets settled out - it's all good, not great. The notion that 'he's the only thing entertaining on the Giants right now' - well, duh. They stink. Again, OBJ redux.
We need to get out of 'good/great individual performances' and back to actually winning football games.
Tavaris Jackson
Gus Frerotte
40 year old Favre - AP carried them to NFC Championship
41 year old Favre
Christian Ponder x3
Bridgewater x2 - AP hurt his rookie season, playoffs year 2
When a 40 year old Favre is the best QB you play with, you're not going to go very far. I hope the Giants can find someone at least that good to pair with Barkley.
They're both short-sighted. Right now, Barkley is very impressive - he's had some great runs. It's clear he could be one of the best, if not the best in the NFL, if he had the surrounding cast.
But the same way people preach patience, that the QB position will be resolved, posters need to understand Barkley's not there yet. OBJ opened up his career in an even more impressive manner, and now we are where we are.
Until the offensive performance gets settled out - it's all good, not great. The notion that 'he's the only thing entertaining on the Giants right now' - well, duh. They stink. Again, OBJ redux.
We need to get out of 'good/great individual performances' and back to actually winning football games.
I'll take what I can get. The giants suck, but I have no control over that, so again I'll take what I can get. I've started to realize for me the best way I can approach giants football is to be entertained. That is the reason why I watch sports in the first place. To each their own, I certainly do not have any right to suggest how people should handle their sports. For me it's much healthier and more enjoyable to treat it as entertainment, which it really is in respect to the real issues that we deal with in life.
Btw, I'm a patience preacher, which of course I've been mocked for, but again to each their own.
Quote:
for a decade. The Lions had the best RB in the league for a decade. Who are two of the handful of teams that have never won a super bowl? Hmmmm.
I'm not saying it's not great to have him, but if we can't get the rest of the house in order, it will be a wasted asset.
Jim Brown won a championship with crap at QB.
Emmitt Smith anchored several championship offenses.
Marshawn Lynch carried a Seahawks offense to a SB title.
Terrell Davis carried Elway and the Broncos to 2 titles.
Faulk was the heart & soul of the greatest show on turf.
Dan Marino has 0 rings.
Philip Rivers has 0 rings.
Elway has no rings without TD.
Rodgers/Brees - arguably 2 of the top 10 QBs all time have 2 rings combined.
Warren Moon has no rings.
Superb post, imv.
That said, who wouldn’t want a 15 year QB? They are not a dime a dozen, however
Quote:
for a decade. The Lions had the best RB in the league for a decade. Who are two of the handful of teams that have never won a super bowl? Hmmmm.
I'm not saying it's not great to have him, but if we can't get the rest of the house in order, it will be a wasted asset.
Jim Brown won a championship with crap at QB.
Emmitt Smith anchored several championship offenses.
Marshawn Lynch carried a Seahawks offense to a SB title.
Terrell Davis carried Elway and the Broncos to 2 titles.
Faulk was the heart & soul of the greatest show on turf.
Dan Marino has 0 rings.
Philip Rivers has 0 rings.
Elway has no rings without TD.
Rodgers/Brees - arguably 2 of the top 10 QBs all time have 2 rings combined.
Warren Moon has no rings.
What about Brady with basically no backs?
Superb post, imv.
That said, who wouldn’t want a 15 year QB? They are not a dime a dozen, however
Taking it a step further, here are active "franchise" QBs with no rings:
Matt Ryan
Kirk Cousins
Matt Stafford
Derek Carr
Andrew Luck
Philip Rivers
Cam Newton
Ryan Tannehill
Andy Dalton
Jimmy Garoppolo
Even worse, I believe the group above has just two SB appearances between them and I think 5 conference championship appearances (Ryan x2, Newton, Rivers, Luck).
Now, paying some of those guys like franchise QBs was likely a mistake (Tannehill, Dalton, Garoppolo, Carr), but the odds of drafting a Ryan/Stafford/Rivers level QB are low and as the above show, even if you get that guy, odds of him carrying you to a title are even lower.
Football is a team game and its rare you can get a player with Barkley's ability. Now build a team around him including (hopefully) an above average QB and they'll be in the running more than not.
What about Brady with basically no backs?
There's a reason he and BB are considered the GOAT.
Now 98 is as good of a season as a RB has ever had for TD. Many QBs would have gotten very far there.
There are some QBs who do not give you a chance to be in the playoffs consistently.
Quote:
What about Brady with basically no backs?
There's a reason he and BB are considered the GOAT.
So Barkley is going to be the Brady of backs then
They're both short-sighted. Right now, Barkley is very impressive - he's had some great runs. It's clear he could be one of the best, if not the best in the NFL, if he had the surrounding cast.
But the same way people preach patience, that the QB position will be resolved, posters need to understand Barkley's not there yet. OBJ opened up his career in an even more impressive manner, and now we are where we are.
Until the offensive performance gets settled out - it's all good, not great. The notion that 'he's the only thing entertaining on the Giants right now' - well, duh. They stink. Again, OBJ redux.
We need to get out of 'good/great individual performances' and back to actually winning football games.
I disagree, I think Barkley is there. This isn't a yet debate, he's arrived and he's an ever better pro than he was collegiate player despite the horrendous OL he rushes behind.
As for Beckham we are where we are because of many reasons none of which seem to be at all relateable to Barkley. There have completely different personalities, they play different positions, 1 is QB dependant the other isn't. On and on and on.
Not sure why I have to wait to say Barkley is here. He fucking is here and he's our best player. I don't need to see 10, 20 or 50 more games to come to that conclusion.
So Barkley is going to be the Brady of backs then
Who said that? I think if you fix the OL and add an average QB to this team (e.g. Alex Smith), you'd have a consistent playoff contender.
Add an elite QB and you have the Saints offense.
Quote:
So Barkley is going to be the Brady of backs then
Who said that? I think if you fix the OL and add an average QB to this team (e.g. Alex Smith), you'd have a consistent playoff contender.
Add an elite QB and you have the Saints offense.
And that's really the crux of it. I know everyone wants the next 15 year starter, but in reality, there's many other ways to win. We don't need a superstar QB. We need someone who's capable of playing in today's NFL - good pocket movement, maybe some wheels to escape pressure, and accuracy.
What happens when Brady, Brees and Rodgers retire? We are going to have a pretty wide open field of QB's and a lot of new faces in the Superbowl each year.
Quote:
In comment 14134041 micky said:
Quote:
So Barkley is going to be the Brady of backs then
Who said that? I think if you fix the OL and add an average QB to this team (e.g. Alex Smith), you'd have a consistent playoff contender.
Add an elite QB and you have the Saints offense.
And that's really the crux of it. I know everyone wants the next 15 year starter, but in reality, there's many other ways to win. We don't need a superstar QB. We need someone who's capable of playing in today's NFL - good pocket movement, maybe some wheels to escape pressure, and accuracy.
What happens when Brady, Brees and Rodgers retire? We are going to have a pretty wide open field of QB's and a lot of new faces in the Superbowl each year.
Well, Brees and Rodgers rarely make the SB, so we really just need Brady (or BB) to retire and we'll get an even more wide open field! :-)
Quote:
So Barkley is going to be the Brady of backs then
Who said that? I think if you fix the OL and add an average QB to this team (e.g. Alex Smith), you'd have a consistent playoff contender.
Add an elite QB and you have the Saints offense.
Alex Smith who could barely throw a pass at Metlife to save his life when windy? Good luck with that...
Jim Brown won a championship with crap at QB.
Emmitt Smith anchored several championship offenses.
Marshawn Lynch carried a Seahawks offense to a SB title.
Terrell Davis carried Elway and the Broncos to 2 titles.
Faulk was the heart & soul of the greatest show on turf.
Dan Marino has 0 rings.
Philip Rivers has 0 rings.
Elway has no rings without TD.
Rodgers/Brees - arguably 2 of the top 10 QBs all time have 2 rings combined.
Warren Moon has no rings.
Please remind me how many of those RBs were top 2 picks.
I could argue kickers are more valuable in today's game.
If Barkley's style - and he's enormously entertaining - is good medication to get you through another miserable season than God bless you. But in the end, there are a lot of solutions at the RB position and it's usually not a position that is going to produce a ton more wins.
I could argue kickers are more valuable in today's game.
If Barkley's style - and he's enormously entertaining - is good medication to get you through another miserable season than God bless you. But in the end, there are a lot of solutions at the RB position and it's usually not a position that is going to produce a ton more wins.
And your biggest mistake is just calling him an RB. Its hard to take your view seriously. He's an elite weapon that changes games. If we weren't brain dead on defense and had a pulse on either the OL or at QB we'd probably have a winning record right now. And that would squarely be because he's that fucking good.
I could argue kickers are more valuable in today's game.
If Barkley's style - and he's enormously entertaining - is good medication to get you through another miserable season than God bless you. But in the end, there are a lot of solutions at the RB position and it's usually not a position that is going to produce a ton more wins.
Please do. I could use a good laugh!
LOL
LOL
We have ONE best in both. I would put Barley behind Gurley and OBJ is top 5 somewhere. Maybe top 3.
Quote:
for a decade. The Lions had the best RB in the league for a decade. Who are two of the handful of teams that have never won a super bowl? Hmmmm.
I'm not saying it's not great to have him, but if we can't get the rest of the house in order, it will be a wasted asset.
Jim Brown won a championship with crap at QB.
Emmitt Smith anchored several championship offenses.
Marshawn Lynch carried a Seahawks offense to a SB title.
Terrell Davis carried Elway and the Broncos to 2 titles.
Faulk was the heart & soul of the greatest show on turf.
Dan Marino has 0 rings.
Philip Rivers has 0 rings.
Elway has no rings without TD.
Rodgers/Brees - arguably 2 of the top 10 QBs all time have 2 rings combined.
Warren Moon has no rings.
Exactly, it takes a team. People thinking a QB is the silver bullet are mistaken. The Rams did it by getting a top RB, a good QB (but not top QB), and a top DL
He's on a crappy team and roster and can't do it by himself.
He's on a crappy team and roster and can't do it by himself.
All things considered (his team, his recent injury, etc) the guy is actually playing pretty damn well this year.
Quote:
since 2004.
He's on a crappy team and roster and can't do it by himself.
All things considered (his team, his recent injury, etc) the guy is actually playing pretty damn well this year.
And they are still 1-5. He is better than that, but they are 1-5.
1 - Alvin Kamara
2 - Saquon Barkley
3 - Todd Gurley
4 - Kareem Hunt
5 - Ezekiel Elliot
Quote:
In comment 14134228 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
since 2004.
He's on a crappy team and roster and can't do it by himself.
All things considered (his team, his recent injury, etc) the guy is actually playing pretty damn well this year.
And they are still 1-5. He is better than that, but they are 1-5.
Proof they should've drafted a RB. Wasted the #1 overall pick on a QB when they could've drafted a RB, which would've guaranteed long term success and shown that the FO actually had a plan to turn things around.
Quote:
In comment 14134247 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 14134228 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
since 2004.
He's on a crappy team and roster and can't do it by himself.
All things considered (his team, his recent injury, etc) the guy is actually playing pretty damn well this year.
And they are still 1-5. He is better than that, but they are 1-5.
Proof they should've drafted a RB. Wasted the #1 overall pick on a QB when they could've drafted a RB, which would've guaranteed long term success and shown that the FO actually had a plan to turn things around.
There has not been a prospect of Luck's caliber since 2012.
If Andrew Luck had been there in this draft, they would have taken him over Barkley.
I agree that if they thought one of Darnold/Rosen/Allen was a franchise QB, he would've been the pick. And forget about a Luck-level talent, those guys come along every decade or two at best (he was supposedly the best since Peyton), if there was a Cam Newton level QB prospect they would've taken him over Barkley.
And of course, having the #2 pick, they would've needed 2 prospects at that level!
Correct.
A good offensive line and a strong running game never hurt any rookie QB coming in. However, there are plenty of examples of promising QB's getting ruined by not having those things.
Like Baltimore in SB XXXV with Trent Dilfer then. Hope we find a Trent Dilfer soon then