Plenty of fans here would rather suck for a or two decade rather than admit that none of the top QBs look like they will be anywhere near good a player as Barkley. Maybe they will. But now it’s a silly hill to plant a flag on to be adamant about
The reality is without an OL you almost never win. Andrew Luck coming out was 10’X the prospect than all of last years guys were. He’s been battered so much people thought his career was over. Reese decimated this team. Barkley was not a wrong pick in any way. They need studs. He’s one
including alternate selections? Usually there are about 5 pro bowl QBs per conference every year. It's not too hard to make a few if you just have a job for 10 years and are decent.
Barkley is a lock hall of Famer though so I guess it doesn't matter.
including alternate selections? Usually there are about 5 pro bowl QBs per conference every year. It's not too hard to make a few if you just have a job for 10 years and are decent.
Barkley is a lock hall of Famer though so I guess it doesn't matter.
That is sort of the question though. Darnold probably isn't good enough to even be a decent starter in the league for 10 years. Yeah his team isn't talented and he is a 21 year old rookie, but he was never great at USC and always turned the ball over. Like Josh Allen, he is what he is. And that isn't a good QB.
Plenty of fans here would rather suck for a or two decade rather than admit that none of the top QBs look like they will be anywhere near good a player as Barkley. Maybe they will. But now it’s a silly hill to plant a flag on to be adamant about
The reality is without an OL you almost never win. Andrew Luck coming out was 10’X the prospect than all of last years guys were. He’s been battered so much people thought his career was over. Reese decimated this team. Barkley was not a wrong pick in any way. They need studs. He’s one
Rookie season: 48.2 completion%,6TDs,9 int's,55.4 quarterback rating. Can't judge rookie quarterbacks. Especially ones that are 21 years old playing with the worst set of skill position players anywhere along with a terrible o-line.
Rookie season: 48.2 completion%,6TDs,9 int's,55.4 quarterback rating. Can't judge rookie quarterbacks. Especially ones that are 21 years old playing with the worst set of skill position players anywhere along with a terrible o-line.
You just can't compare the league in 2004 and today. It's never been easier to play QB in the league as a rookie.
Their incessant ramblings about how we made the wrong choice have polluted this fine site. I hope they all are taken out to the wood shed and given 100 lashes each for spreading such ill will and divisevness.
Rookie season: 48.2 completion%,6TDs,9 int's,55.4 quarterback rating. Can't judge rookie quarterbacks. Especially ones that are 21 years old playing with the worst set of skill position players anywhere along with a terrible o-line.
You just can't compare the league in 2004 and today. It's never been easier to play QB in the league as a rookie.
Correct.
As for the OP yeah Barkley by miles and miles.
Someone really needs to tell Darnold to chill the fuck out, he's a psycho with the football. Hasn't changed his game one bit in the NFL.
Barkley on the other hand adjusted his game the day he stepped on an NFL field.
And to be honest I have never understood people who think someone can be a #1 overall pick based on "potential". Like saying "he's not very good, but he's inexperienced and raw so it's clear that with some polishing he's going to be great." You can't know that. It's the same reason SF went with Alex Smith over Rodgers. He has to at least be a great QB in college to consider drafting him in the top 10, otherwise it's just too much of a risk. If he turns it over nonstop in COLLEGE FOOTBALL what the hell do you expect to happen when he gets to the NFL.
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
If you wanted to line it up some other way - Pro Bowls for each, leading the league statistically, etc. - I think you could safely bet on Barkley.
But you're talking about the HoF vs. a few Pro Bowls. There have been some pretty lousy players sent to Pro Bowls. The HoF on the other hand, requires a career of both longevity and top of the league performance. Not as easy to carve out as a lot of BBIers imply.
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
You think it's a coincidence that 2 of the best young QBs (Goff/Mahomes) have elite RBs and great skill position players more generally?
Look how good Zeke (and their OL) made Prescott look his rookie season.
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
You think it's a coincidence that 2 of the best young QBs (Goff/Mahomes) have elite RBs and great skill position players more generally?
Look how good Zeke (and their OL) made Prescott look his rookie season.
What does "more generally" mean? Does it mean that there are exceptions that you ignored because it doesn't fit your argument?
Secondly are you trying to say only Barkley and the Chiefs and Rams have the correct formula of being successful and only those 3 or 4 rb's are capable of being successful meaning there is no other rb that the Giants could have taken or can take in the future that will be any good?
RE: But having a great RB never helps win a Super Bowl Â
And John Riggins. Washington won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks, none of whom with get into Canton.
Different game.
To address the original post, Darnold making the pro-bowl 3 times.
Not turning this into a who is better or who should have been drafted but the Pro Bowl is a joke, by the time the game rolls around the 7th QB is on the team.
The HOF is much more difficult to get into, Barkley is great but talking HOF 8 games in is dumb, just like it was with Shockey.
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
+1 I would rather be 1-7 with a QB and hope for the future than with a potential HOF RB and having to hope we can land a QB.
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
+1 I would rather be 1-7 with a QB and hope for the future than with a potential HOF RB and having to hope we can land a QB.
This mentality makes no sense. So even if the QB looks like hot garbage, you would rather be 1-7 with that guy than to be 1-7 with a potential HOFer and the hope of finding a QB that is actually good?
You think it's a coincidence that 2 of the best young QBs (Goff/Mahomes) have elite RBs and great skill position players more generally?
Look how good Zeke (and their OL) made Prescott look his rookie season.
What does "more generally" mean? Does it mean that there are exceptions that you ignored because it doesn't fit your argument?
Secondly are you trying to say only Barkley and the Chiefs and Rams have the correct formula of being successful and only those 3 or 4 rb's are capable of being successful meaning there is no other rb that the Giants could have taken or can take in the future that will be any good?
More generally = Chiefs/Rams are loaded at the skill positions (like the Giants with Barkley/Beckham/Shepard/Engram)
I'm not saying that is the "only" formula for success. I'm disputing the notion that you have to draft a QB first which many here keep claiming. My point is that having a strong running game in place when you add that young QB makes the transition for that player a lot easier and shortens the learning curve.
Want other examples? Texans don't have a Gurley/Hunt, but Miller is a good RB and they're loaded at WR which has certainly helped Watson. You think he'd be this good, this quick without Hopkins at WR?
Trubisky is having a solid, if not spectacular 2nd season thanks in no small part to the skill players around him (Cohen, Burton, Gabriel, Robinson, Miller, Howard, etc). No superstars in that group but a very deep group of very good players.
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
+1 I would rather be 1-7 with a QB and hope for the future than with a potential HOF RB and having to hope we can land a QB.
This mentality makes no sense. So even if the QB looks like hot garbage, you would rather be 1-7 with that guy than to be 1-7 with a potential HOFer and the hope of finding a QB that is actually good?
You do understand that you have to "develop" QBs, right? What he looks like now could be vastly different while SB might be at his peak right now and this team will STILL not be any better til they find a QB. As of right now we are still in the hunt for that and it will require our most valuable resource (#1 pick) and we will have to develop him from there whereas if we had him on the team they could be developing him now.
Plenty of fans here would rather suck for a or two decade rather than admit that none of the top QBs look like they will be anywhere near good a player as Barkley. Maybe they will. But now it’s a silly hill to plant a flag on to be adamant about
The reality is without an OL you almost never win. Andrew Luck coming out was 10’X the prospect than all of last years guys were. He’s been battered so much people thought his career was over. Reese decimated this team. Barkley was not a wrong pick in any way. They need studs. He’s one
Barkley is a lock hall of Famer though so I guess it doesn't matter.
More fun to refight Gettysburg....and more useful.
Barkley is a lock hall of Famer though so I guess it doesn't matter.
That is sort of the question though. Darnold probably isn't good enough to even be a decent starter in the league for 10 years. Yeah his team isn't talented and he is a 21 year old rookie, but he was never great at USC and always turned the ball over. Like Josh Allen, he is what he is. And that isn't a good QB.
Quote:
.
Plenty of fans here would rather suck for a or two decade rather than admit that none of the top QBs look like they will be anywhere near good a player as Barkley. Maybe they will. But now it’s a silly hill to plant a flag on to be adamant about
The reality is without an OL you almost never win. Andrew Luck coming out was 10’X the prospect than all of last years guys were. He’s been battered so much people thought his career was over. Reese decimated this team. Barkley was not a wrong pick in any way. They need studs. He’s one
Well said.
Historically, as you know, the odds of winning a SB are infinitesimally > with a great QB than a great RB.
That guy likes a player and that poor sap is finished. Hopefully, Barkley breaks this long standing law that has doomed talent of any kind.
You just can't compare the league in 2004 and today. It's never been easier to play QB in the league as a rookie.
Quote:
Rookie season: 48.2 completion%,6TDs,9 int's,55.4 quarterback rating. Can't judge rookie quarterbacks. Especially ones that are 21 years old playing with the worst set of skill position players anywhere along with a terrible o-line.
You just can't compare the league in 2004 and today. It's never been easier to play QB in the league as a rookie.
Correct.
As for the OP yeah Barkley by miles and miles.
Someone really needs to tell Darnold to chill the fuck out, he's a psycho with the football. Hasn't changed his game one bit in the NFL.
Barkley on the other hand adjusted his game the day he stepped on an NFL field.
That guy likes a player and that poor sap is finished. Hopefully, Barkley breaks this long standing law that has doomed talent of any kind.
I wouldn’t worry abut that, prior to the draft he said he couldn’t break tackles. Might be my favorite proclamation to date.
That Lienart was the next Brady...
That...
Well you know...
I worry about Mayfield getting hurt, and Rosen is tough to judge since his supporting cast is so bad.
I have game pass and watch a lot of condensed games. Miami dropped two easy picks, so it could have been worse for Darnold.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
But you're talking about the HoF vs. a few Pro Bowls. There have been some pretty lousy players sent to Pro Bowls. The HoF on the other hand, requires a career of both longevity and top of the league performance. Not as easy to carve out as a lot of BBIers imply.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
You think it's a coincidence that 2 of the best young QBs (Goff/Mahomes) have elite RBs and great skill position players more generally?
Look how good Zeke (and their OL) made Prescott look his rookie season.
Quote:
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
You think it's a coincidence that 2 of the best young QBs (Goff/Mahomes) have elite RBs and great skill position players more generally?
Look how good Zeke (and their OL) made Prescott look his rookie season.
What does "more generally" mean? Does it mean that there are exceptions that you ignored because it doesn't fit your argument?
Secondly are you trying to say only Barkley and the Chiefs and Rams have the correct formula of being successful and only those 3 or 4 rb's are capable of being successful meaning there is no other rb that the Giants could have taken or can take in the future that will be any good?
And John Riggins. Washington won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks, none of whom with get into Canton.
I'm all in on Mary Ann.
Quote:
So help me Emmitt Smith.
And John Riggins. Washington won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks, none of whom with get into Canton.
Different game.
To address the original post, Darnold making the pro-bowl 3 times.
Not turning this into a who is better or who should have been drafted but the Pro Bowl is a joke, by the time the game rolls around the 7th QB is on the team.
The HOF is much more difficult to get into, Barkley is great but talking HOF 8 games in is dumb, just like it was with Shockey.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
+1 I would rather be 1-7 with a QB and hope for the future than with a potential HOF RB and having to hope we can land a QB.
Quote:
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
+1 I would rather be 1-7 with a QB and hope for the future than with a potential HOF RB and having to hope we can land a QB.
This mentality makes no sense. So even if the QB looks like hot garbage, you would rather be 1-7 with that guy than to be 1-7 with a potential HOFer and the hope of finding a QB that is actually good?
You think it's a coincidence that 2 of the best young QBs (Goff/Mahomes) have elite RBs and great skill position players more generally?
Look how good Zeke (and their OL) made Prescott look his rookie season.
What does "more generally" mean? Does it mean that there are exceptions that you ignored because it doesn't fit your argument?
Secondly are you trying to say only Barkley and the Chiefs and Rams have the correct formula of being successful and only those 3 or 4 rb's are capable of being successful meaning there is no other rb that the Giants could have taken or can take in the future that will be any good?
More generally = Chiefs/Rams are loaded at the skill positions (like the Giants with Barkley/Beckham/Shepard/Engram)
I'm not saying that is the "only" formula for success. I'm disputing the notion that you have to draft a QB first which many here keep claiming. My point is that having a strong running game in place when you add that young QB makes the transition for that player a lot easier and shortens the learning curve.
Want other examples? Texans don't have a Gurley/Hunt, but Miller is a good RB and they're loaded at WR which has certainly helped Watson. You think he'd be this good, this quick without Hopkins at WR?
Trubisky is having a solid, if not spectacular 2nd season thanks in no small part to the skill players around him (Cohen, Burton, Gabriel, Robinson, Miller, Howard, etc). No superstars in that group but a very deep group of very good players.
Quote:
In comment 14165134 giantstock said:
Quote:
And I would have signed Hubbard and Fulton. I would now have 3 young OLinemen to look forward to with a good QB for the future. SO I would have tried Hubbard this year at LT.
As far as the OP's question it really shows the OP has no understanding of what positional value means.
If GMen can get a QB then getting SB was an outstanding move. Without the QB do I really care that SB would get in the HOF yet lead his team nowhere?
+1 I would rather be 1-7 with a QB and hope for the future than with a potential HOF RB and having to hope we can land a QB.
This mentality makes no sense. So even if the QB looks like hot garbage, you would rather be 1-7 with that guy than to be 1-7 with a potential HOFer and the hope of finding a QB that is actually good?
You do understand that you have to "develop" QBs, right? What he looks like now could be vastly different while SB might be at his peak right now and this team will STILL not be any better til they find a QB. As of right now we are still in the hunt for that and it will require our most valuable resource (#1 pick) and we will have to develop him from there whereas if we had him on the team they could be developing him now.