But if Darnold becomes a great player, hard to see how you can criticize the “let s take a quarterback crowd” for wishing the Giants had him,
A better question would be, why is it so important to you that they admit they were wrong, especially when that hasn’t been determined yet.
I wanted Darnold, but I root like hell for Barkley, because I m a Giants fan.
Don’t really get the point if your post.
Darnold is an INT machine. He was at USC and so far still
Is. Maybe he becomes a great player. Barkley is playing close to All
pro. Behind a mediocre line still. He's a better player. by a lot.
Aaron Rodges is easily one of the best QBs in
The game and a future HOF first ballot guy. How
Are the Packers doing ? The stupid bullshirt about drafting a QB and you can't win a SB without a "franchise" QB is just that.
If they thought Darnold, Allen or Rosen was the guy, they would have drafted him despite Barkley’s obvious talent. Because a franchise QB is that important. They didn’t believe these guys were a high probability to be that.
Granted it’s early, but so far it doesn’t appear they were wrong.
This may not be obvious to many Giants fans today, but by this time next year it will be very obvious. Josh Allen will ultimately separate himself from Mayfield, Rosen, and Darnold, and we Giants fan can then debate whether Gettleman should have taken Allen or Barkley. The next 5-7 years will be interesting as we imagine how many games the Giants would have won with Allen vs Barkley.
RE: The Barkley debate is Barkely vs. Josh Allen Â
This may not be obvious to many Giants fans today, but by this time next year it will be very obvious. Josh Allen will ultimately separate himself from Mayfield, Rosen, and Darnold, and we Giants fan can then debate whether Gettleman should have taken Allen or Barkley. The next 5-7 years will be interesting as we imagine how many games the Giants would have won with Allen vs Barkley.
You obviously are a massive Josh Allen fan. While possessing a great deal of physical talent, Allen still has the exact problem he had in college. His completion % in the NFL is 52.9%. In college it was 56.2%. While he should improve in the NFL, historically college QBs don't really improve their completion % in the NFL. Inaccurate QBs in college stay inaccurate QBs in the NFL. Allen will likely hover around completing 55% of his passes for his career and that will be his downhill as a NFL QB despite the physical talent he has. It is what scouts warned about him. He is a heartbreak cause you can see the ability but his inaccuracy is something he likely won't be able to overcome. Just like a guy with a great fastball who could never control it.
The difference in ability between Barkley and Allen is like the difference in ability of a UFC champion and a high school bully.
If they thought Darnold, Allen or Rosen was the guy, they would have drafted him despite Barkley’s obvious talent. Because a franchise QB is that important. They didn’t believe these guys were a high probability to be that.
Granted it’s early, but so far it doesn’t appear they were wrong.
Agree 100%. You could make the argument that Mayfield may have been a better pick, but he was not available and may have failed in the NY market. SB is one of the best RBs I've ever seen.
It's like getting a great RB and WR in 1 player.
RE: The Barkley debate is Barkely vs. Josh Allen Â
This may not be obvious to many Giants fans today, but by this time next year it will be very obvious. Josh Allen will ultimately separate himself from Mayfield, Rosen, and Darnold, and we Giants fan can then debate whether Gettleman should have taken Allen or Barkley. The next 5-7 years will be interesting as we imagine how many games the Giants would have won with Allen vs Barkley.
is to ask "given what we know today, which quarterback would you trade straight up for Saquon Barkley?"
For me, there is only one - Pat Mahomes.
Age eliminates the elite guys. Guys like Wilson, Watson, Goff and Wentz are very close and a cogent case could be made for each of them. But I for one would not give up Barkley for any one of them...
As for the 2018 guys, Mayfield will at best be another Matthew Stafford. Allen and Rosen will be out of football as soon as their rookie contract expires. And Darnold will never be better than Mark Sanchez...
There is no need to study this for a decade. Gettleman has made a lot of mistakes in his first year, but the 2018 draft was not one of them. Barkley was the second best player ever drafted by the Giants behind LT. Case closed.
Barkley can be the best... but there's also a matter of longevity... how many healthy, productive years can Saquon give us? 10 good years vs a QB with 15 good years...
If he stays healthy I see no reason he can’t be at this level for 12+ years.
As for his stats, from CBS Sports:
“Barkley has now totaled 100 yards from scrimmage or more in 11-of-12 regular season games for the Giants this season. The only other rookie to have done so is Eric Dickerson”
Very few RBs are remotely this productive for 12 years.
Barkley can be the best... but there's also a matter of longevity... how many healthy, productive years can Saquon give us? 10 good years vs a QB with 15 good years...
If he stays healthy I see no reason he can’t be at this level for 12+ years.
As for his stats, from CBS Sports:
“Barkley has now totaled 100 yards from scrimmage or more in 11-of-12 regular season games for the Giants this season. The only other rookie to have done so is Eric Dickerson”
Very few RBs are remotely this productive for 12 years.
I can't think one, actually. Even the all-time greats are usually on the decline before 30.
When you have a potential/probable Jim Brown or Gale Â
This may not be obvious to many Giants fans today, but by this time next year it will be very obvious. Josh Allen will ultimately separate himself from Mayfield, Rosen, and Darnold, and we Giants fan can then debate whether Gettleman should have taken Allen or Barkley. The next 5-7 years will be interesting as we imagine how many games the Giants would have won with Allen vs Barkley.
Wrong. Josh Allen is a Davis Webb clone.
Have you ever seen Allen play? I'm guessing if you had, you would never make a statement like this.
Yes both QBs have big arms and neither have been accurate passers. But that's where the similarity ends.
Allen is a far better athlete who can escape a pass rush and keep a play alive, something that Webb just can't do. Allen has also rushed for 234 yds in his last two games, including 135 yds on 9 carries yesterday.
Webb was cut and no team claimed him for their 53 man squad.
How long do you think Allen would last as a FA?
And one more point about Allen...
When it came to QBs last year supposedly DG preferred Darnold but Shurmur preferred Allen.
If Allen had ended up with the Giants his completion % likely would have exceeded 60% at some point, as most QBs (including Bradford and Eli) have seen their completion percentages rise dramatically in a Shurmur offense.
Because it is an opinion. Opinions don’t get “settled,” they are expressed. People can agree or disagree, but there is no right answer that is magically revealed one day.
The bigger question is “Why is it so important to have your opinion validated on an internet message board?”
Before the season started I came to terms with the Barkley pet and I'm completely okay with it. In hindsight, based on the overall state of the team I am thinking Gettleman should not have rushed to the podium. I think a trade down for multiple picks looks like it MIGHT have been the right move. Chubb and Michel look like they are going to be excellent backs as well. However I realized it was no guarantee we are going to have them picked the correct players with those extra pics. We managed against worst case scenario, which I am for. We could not miss on the second pick in the draft and we did not. Saquon Barkley is really fun to watch.
Before the season started I came to terms with the Barkley pet and I'm completely okay with it. In hindsight, based on the overall state of the team I am thinking Gettleman should not have rushed to the podium. I think a trade down for multiple picks looks like it MIGHT have been the right move. Chubb and Michel look like they are going to be excellent backs as well. However I realized it was no guarantee we are going to have them picked the correct players with those extra pics. We managed against worst case scenario, which I am for. We could not miss on the second pick in the draft and we did not. Saquon Barkley is really fun to watch.
My criticism of the pick as well. It's fair to pass on the QBs if you don't like them, however the presence of the QBs gives you an opportunity to get QB value. Barkley was a good pick, to argue that would be digging in your heels unnecessarily. However, I think a trade was there to be made with the Broncos and we still could have ended up with Barkley at that pick + 2-3 more premium picks. If Barkley is not there? You have Bradley Chubb and premium picks. He ran the card up without exploring that possibility, so we'll never really know. As good as he is, and I think he's the best RB in football, I don't think any RB is worth running the card up at #2 when there are QBs, a stud corner and a premium edge rusher on the board. You have leverage you may want to explore. This was my opinion after the draft and it hasn't changed since, I knew what type of player we were getting.
The Broncos were trying to trade out of their spot.... Â
Because it is an opinion. Opinions don’t get “settled,” they are expressed. People can agree or disagree, but there is no right answer that is magically revealed one day.
The bigger question is “Why is it so important to have your opinion validated on an internet message board?”
That isn't true. There are plenty of examples of draft picks that are better than the players passed over. If Saquon becomes a HOF RB, and Darnold little more than a journeyman QB, it is only "opinion" to say Saquon is the better player?
Because it is an opinion. Opinions don’t get “settled,” they are expressed. People can agree or disagree, but there is no right answer that is magically revealed one day.
The bigger question is “Why is it so important to have your opinion validated on an internet message board?”
That isn't true. There are plenty of examples of draft picks that are better than the players passed over. If Saquon becomes a HOF RB, and Darnold little more than a journeyman QB, it is only "opinion" to say Saquon is the better player?
Yes, it is only opinion. If Darnold becomes a journeyman QB, who is to say that he would not have become more in the Giants system? Do you really believe all those QBs chosen by Cleveland couldn't hack the NFL, or maybe who picks you and the situation you are in matters?
Absolutely nobody can know what Darnold would be with the Giants because he wasn't drafted by them. Any conclusion on what he would have been is an opinion, not a fact.
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
And who would have been the starting LG for the Giants? I assume in your scenario they'd have traded up from the second round to get Lamar Jackson.
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
And who would have been the starting LG for the Giants? I assume in your scenario they'd have traded up from the second round to get Lamar Jackson.
I'm sure there were other avenues towards acquiring a guard besides Hernandez.
are people really making up their minds about rookie QBs Â
That is patently absurd. Eli's rookie season he played in 9 games, starting 7. Here is his line
W-L: 1-6
Cmp: 48.2%
TD: 6
INT: 9
Y/G:115.9
Y/A: 5.3
Are people really writing off Sam Darnold when his numbers are better than Eli's rookie numbers, and is two years younger than Eli when he started (as well as being the youngest opening day starter in NFL history)?
I guess Eli was going to be out of the league after his rookie contract, too.
Barkley has been electric and is an absolute freak of nature. But is our team really that much closer to being a high-powered offense and winning football team because of it? How long will Barkley be at that level? And how long will he be at that level before we are required to give a very large part of the salary cap to him?
How old/healthy will Barkley be by the time the Giants have a strong offensive line and a QB in or approaching his prime?
I saw a comment earlier suggesting that Barkley won round 1. But are we sure about that? Barkley is certainly better at his position now than any of the rookie QBs are at their position, but the teams that have those QBs are getting started on their growing pains now. If the Giants do draft a QB they plan to start, they will still have to deal with that QB's rookie developmental pains.
It's a valid criticism. The key decision maker did not entertain all possibilities. That's a huge red flag regarding his process. You actually mentioned the Colts, they are the only team that picked behind us that I believe helped themselves more than we did in the draft if we're tallying the score right now. And that's because they maximized the value of that pick. I am not moving the goal posts, I said after the draft that the Giants didn't screw anything up by taking Barkley at 2 but I believe they left money on the table. That's not going to change because he's hitting his ceiling when he was a low risk NFL ready prospect.
And the whole debate is dumb if you ask me. We have a great player and should move on. The Giants didn't sink their franchise like some say but it's not exactly a slam dunk win that he's the best thing we could have done with the pick either. Even playing at the level he is now.
Both sides are being ridiculous having this argument after every single game in Year 1.
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
And who would have been the starting LG for the Giants? I assume in your scenario they'd have traded up from the second round to get Lamar Jackson.
I'm sure there were other avenues towards acquiring a guard besides Hernandez.
You mean in free agency? Not likely. If it were one of their 3rd round picks, then no Carter or BJ Hill.
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
I may be miss-remembering this, but while I know you were touting Jackson early on, I thought you changed your mind on Jackson shortly after the combine.
Can't recall if it was Jackson's measured arm strength, wonderlick score, attitude or a combination of things, but I thought you had changed your mind about wanted to draft him.
RE: are people really making up their minds about rookie QBs Â
That is patently absurd. Eli's rookie season he played in 9 games, starting 7. Here is his line
W-L: 1-6
Cmp: 48.2%
TD: 6
INT: 9
Y/G:115.9
Y/A: 5.3
Are people really writing off Sam Darnold when his numbers are better than Eli's rookie numbers, and is two years younger than Eli when he started (as well as being the youngest opening day starter in NFL history)?
I guess Eli was going to be out of the league after his rookie contract, too.
Barkley has been electric and is an absolute freak of nature. But is our team really that much closer to being a high-powered offense and winning football team because of it? How long will Barkley be at that level? And how long will he be at that level before we are required to give a very large part of the salary cap to him?
How old/healthy will Barkley be by the time the Giants have a strong offensive line and a QB in or approaching his prime?
I saw a comment earlier suggesting that Barkley won round 1. But are we sure about that? Barkley is certainly better at his position now than any of the rookie QBs are at their position, but the teams that have those QBs are getting started on their growing pains now. If the Giants do draft a QB they plan to start, they will still have to deal with that QB's rookie developmental pains.
1. How healthy are Darnold/Allen now? Obviously, QBs typically have longer careers/peaks, but we're knocking Barkley because it's assumed he's going to breakdown when 2 of the QBs taken after him have already missed time due to injuries. They're not expected to be recurring issues, but it's certainly possible the style of play of the QBs, especially Allen, contributed to those injuries (see Vick, Michael).
2. RBs like Barkley, Zeke, Gurley, Hunt can dramatically shorten a rookie QBs developmental curve whether Ds stack the box leaving more man coverage outside or safeties biting on play action.
3. Related to #1, but with those QBs sidelined for several weeks, they're not really going through any "growing pains".
No doubt he's been exciting, but I'm glad they didn't draft him. "Mobile" QBs like Rodgers/Luck are one thing, but unless you're a physical freak like Cam Newton (6'5 250) I just don't trust them staying healthy and the one position you can't afford to have guys constantly being day-to-day or week-to-week is QB. At 6'2 212, I don't trust Jackson to stay healthy and start 16 games a season (a massively underrated trait for Eli). And he's already listed as questionable with a concussion after just 3 starts...
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
I may be miss-remembering this, but while I know you were touting Jackson early on, I thought you changed your mind on Jackson shortly after the combine.
Can't recall if it was Jackson's measured arm strength, wonderlick score, attitude or a combination of things, but I thought you had changed your mind about wanted to draft him.
I was freaked out about his mom acting as his agent. I don't know if that's still the case and obviously Baltimore knows more about the situation than I do, and they apparently vetted him enough to feel good about drafting him.
Like you said, they aren't recurring injuries. I'm not assuming Barkley will specifically breakdown. I'm relying on the understanding that RBs have shorter shelf-lives as top-level producers than QBs and that RBs tend to declineafter age 27. QB's primes are later in age and a longer window.
Mayfield, Rosen, and Darnold have started 9 games already, and Allen started 7. And they will all start more before the season ends. I wouldn't dismiss that development, experience and "growing pains" just because they didn't start every game.
Yes, it is only opinion. If Darnold becomes a journeyman QB, who is to say that he would not have become more in the Giants system? Do you really believe all those QBs chosen by Cleveland couldn't hack the NFL, or maybe who picks you and the situation you are in matters?
Absolutely nobody can know what Darnold would be with the Giants because he wasn't drafted by them. Any conclusion on what he would have been is an opinion, not a fact.
The idea that you cannot accurately evaluate a player's career because he might have been better with another team is a ridiculous assertion. Maybe we should nominate Jake Locker to the HOF, he may have been a HOF QB if only Tenn didn't draft him.
And I was disappointed that we didn't select one but today, I wouldn't trade Barkley for any of the quarterbacks in the last draft. He's better then I expected.
Now thats an honest man's reply to the question. We have a potential Barry Sanders/OJ Simpson type weapon here if we give him some help. Think Mara, DG and Shurmur realize that because the rest of the league does.
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The elusive counter argument is that no other pick would have been guaranteed to be the right pick either.
Unless the Giants fix all of the other dependencies, I think they would be in relatively the same boat in the next few seasons no matter who they picked. Building a team around a 2018-drafted QB would require the same amount of FO improvement as doing it with Barkley.
In the meantime I'm ecstatic about Barkley, not just based on his skills but also his intangibles and leadership.
I don't know. It seems to me right now that a lot of our future eggs may be in Kyle Lauletta's basket.
Let's try to play out a reasonable scenario:
2018: Giants finish around 6-10
2019: Status quo is maintained as Gettleman, Shurmur, and Eli return; more roster turnover takes place as the likes of Vernon and possibly Jenkins are released/traded; Eli QBs all or most of the 2019 games as team finishes 6-10 to 9-7 and out of the playoffs; Gettleman and Shurmur remain, Eli retires
2020: Shurmur is on notice that it's playoffs or else (think Coughlin in 2006), Gettleman may or may not still be the GM with Abrams waiting in the wings. Odds are they won't be bad enough to be in the Tua/Fromm mix unless they want to trade huge resources to get there. QB is...? Maybe the Giants compete, but with a new QB and Shurmur on notice I'd be skeptical.
2021: We are entering year 4 of Barkley (the year at which Gurley got a new contract), and there's a good chance we haven't even made the playoffs yet with him no matter how great (and healthy) he is. By now we may have a new GM and head coach to go with our new QB...will they want to pay a RB huge dollars?
We'll have seen some incredible plays from him, and I agree he's the kind of guy you want your daughter to bring home, but I think there's a better than OK chance that we waste him the same way we've wasted Beckham (since we drafted him our record is 33-46). And the big reason we will have wasted him - through no fault of his own - is that we will have been in the fog of QB purgatory for his first 3-4 years.
I just don't think the timing for this whole thing works.
Exactly. I’ve made the point about this whole thing setting up to be off schedule, which the Giants have been since 2014 for one reason or another.
When you have Eli’s counterparts from the 2004 draft class of Ben & Rivers still playing at such a high level, it likely impacted the decision to stick with him.
If I had to guess, Shurmur is on a much shorter leash than Gettleman is. Sticking with Eli was likely an organizational decision so the Barkley-Hernandez-Hill picks are doing well. I could see Shurmur getting next year with Eli with a playoffs expectation. He either earns the right to draft a blue chip QB or we have a new HC/QB going forward in 2020.
Barkley should make life a lot easier for whoever the new QB is. By the time there will be more OL upgrades as well. It’s also very likely that if we drafted a QB at 2 atleast 2 of those years on a rookie contract would be waited, possibly more. The Bills, Cardinals, and Jets have major, major problems on offense - that can’t be ignored and that would be us too had we foregone Barkley for a QB.
This will take a while to shake out but I’m having fun watching Barkley, he’s the most exciting player in the league IMO and I get more out of that than almost anything else. I’m fine rooting for him for 5+ years, if the Giants can’t make it work, shame on them.
Barkley should make life a lot easier for whoever the new QB is. By the time there will be more OL upgrades as well. It’s also very likely that if we drafted a QB at 2 atleast 2 of those years on a rookie contract would be waited, possibly more. The Bills, Cardinals, and Jets have major, major problems on offense - that can’t be ignored and that would be us too had we foregone Barkley for a QB.
This will take a while to shake out but I’m having fun watching Barkley, he’s the most exciting player in the league IMO and I get more out of that than almost anything else. I’m fine rooting for him for 5+ years, if the Giants can’t make it work, shame on them.
But then we're back to the discussion of:
- Difficulty of finding a QB vs. a RB
- Is it possible to build a team around a RB in today's NFL (I'd love to see it...run the ball and a devastating defense is my favorite football to watch, but is it even possible anymore?)
I would have loved...LOVED...if we had drafted both Barkley and Jackson, backed Jackson up with a couple mobile QBs, and resolved to run the ball 30-40 times a game split between Barkley, Jackson, Gallman, and someone else. It would have been a proactive approach - "THIS is the team we want to be."
I think Barkley is absolutely good enough to build the entire team around. I am very skeptical that the Giants will actually do it. We are 30th in the NFL in rushing attempts. Given the quality of our pass blocking, the investment we've made at RB, and the age/shellshock of our QB, that is beyond the pale.
Compare us with Seattle...a team that also drafted a first round RB, and a team that was also supposed to be pretty poor in the wake of huge personnel changes. They have committed to running the ball (1st in the NFL with 380 attempts - 130 more than NYG) despite their highly drafted RB being a disappointment.
Seattle was talked about coming into this year as being in a complete rebuild, and possibly one of the worst teams in the league this year. They had a resolve to run the football and are sitting at 7-5.
Will we show the same commitment to running the ball these next few years with Barkley? We haven't in year 1.
I think Barkley is absolutely good enough to build the entire team around. I am very skeptical that the Giants will actually do it.
Yep, that's the crux of my skepticism as well. But again, I think that concern ultimately applies no matter who they draft. I suppose it could be "easier" for a poorly-run organization to produce with a talented young QB than a talented young RB, but I'm not sure it can to a degree that will make them competitive with the big boys.
Barkley should make life a lot easier for whoever the new QB is. By the time there will be more OL upgrades as well. It’s also very likely that if we drafted a QB at 2 atleast 2 of those years on a rookie contract would be waited, possibly more. The Bills, Cardinals, and Jets have major, major problems on offense - that can’t be ignored and that would be us too had we foregone Barkley for a QB.
This will take a while to shake out but I’m having fun watching Barkley, he’s the most exciting player in the league IMO and I get more out of that than almost anything else. I’m fine rooting for him for 5+ years, if the Giants can’t make it work, shame on them.
But then we're back to the discussion of:
- Difficulty of finding a QB vs. a RB
- Is it possible to build a team around a RB in today's NFL (I'd love to see it...run the ball and a devastating defense is my favorite football to watch, but is it even possible anymore?)
I would have loved...LOVED...if we had drafted both Barkley and Jackson, backed Jackson up with a couple mobile QBs, and resolved to run the ball 30-40 times a game split between Barkley, Jackson, Gallman, and someone else. It would have been a proactive approach - "THIS is the team we want to be."
I think Barkley is absolutely good enough to build the entire team around. I am very skeptical that the Giants will actually do it. We are 30th in the NFL in rushing attempts. Given the quality of our pass blocking, the investment we've made at RB, and the age/shellshock of our QB, that is beyond the pale.
Compare us with Seattle...a team that also drafted a first round RB, and a team that was also supposed to be pretty poor in the wake of huge personnel changes. They have committed to running the ball (1st in the NFL with 380 attempts - 130 more than NYG) despite their highly drafted RB being a disappointment.
Seattle was talked about coming into this year as being in a complete rebuild, and possibly one of the worst teams in the league this year. They had a resolve to run the football and are sitting at 7-5.
Will we show the same commitment to running the ball these next few years with Barkley? We haven't in year 1.
I was skeptical of Jackson but WTF could teams do to stop us witht he attack you mentioned. All defenses are built to stop the pass nowadays, if we went power running game and a couple mobile QBs we could literally shatter defenses and hurt people. Lay a 350 lb OL on speed rushers 40 times a game they will quit by the 4th quarter.
but just a little...
Another scenario is the Giants find a QB that is as good or better than any of the 2018 QBs.
A better question would be, why is it so important to you that they admit they were wrong, especially when that hasn’t been determined yet.
I wanted Darnold, but I root like hell for Barkley, because I m a Giants fan.
Don’t really get the point if your post.
Darnold is an INT machine. He was at USC and so far still
Is. Maybe he becomes a great player. Barkley is playing close to All
pro. Behind a mediocre line still. He's a better player. by a lot.
Aaron Rodges is easily one of the best QBs in
The game and a future HOF first ballot guy. How
Are the Packers doing ? The stupid bullshirt about drafting a QB and you can't win a SB without a "franchise" QB is just that.
Nick Fucking Forles won last yearFor God's sakes.
Granted it’s early, but so far it doesn’t appear they were wrong.
You obviously are a massive Josh Allen fan. While possessing a great deal of physical talent, Allen still has the exact problem he had in college. His completion % in the NFL is 52.9%. In college it was 56.2%. While he should improve in the NFL, historically college QBs don't really improve their completion % in the NFL. Inaccurate QBs in college stay inaccurate QBs in the NFL. Allen will likely hover around completing 55% of his passes for his career and that will be his downhill as a NFL QB despite the physical talent he has. It is what scouts warned about him. He is a heartbreak cause you can see the ability but his inaccuracy is something he likely won't be able to overcome. Just like a guy with a great fastball who could never control it.
The difference in ability between Barkley and Allen is like the difference in ability of a UFC champion and a high school bully.
Granted it’s early, but so far it doesn’t appear they were wrong.
Agree 100%. You could make the argument that Mayfield may have been a better pick, but he was not available and may have failed in the NY market. SB is one of the best RBs I've ever seen.
It's like getting a great RB and WR in 1 player.
Wrong. Josh Allen is a Davis Webb clone.
Although, I think they might have taken Mayfield if he was there...
For me, there is only one - Pat Mahomes.
Age eliminates the elite guys. Guys like Wilson, Watson, Goff and Wentz are very close and a cogent case could be made for each of them. But I for one would not give up Barkley for any one of them...
As for the 2018 guys, Mayfield will at best be another Matthew Stafford. Allen and Rosen will be out of football as soon as their rookie contract expires. And Darnold will never be better than Mark Sanchez...
There is no need to study this for a decade. Gettleman has made a lot of mistakes in his first year, but the 2018 draft was not one of them. Barkley was the second best player ever drafted by the Giants behind LT. Case closed.
Quote:
Barkley can be the best... but there's also a matter of longevity... how many healthy, productive years can Saquon give us? 10 good years vs a QB with 15 good years...
If he stays healthy I see no reason he can’t be at this level for 12+ years.
As for his stats, from CBS Sports:
“Barkley has now totaled 100 yards from scrimmage or more in 11-of-12 regular season games for the Giants this season. The only other rookie to have done so is Eric Dickerson”
Very few RBs are remotely this productive for 12 years.
Quote:
In comment 14202676 SHO'NUFF said:
Quote:
Barkley can be the best... but there's also a matter of longevity... how many healthy, productive years can Saquon give us? 10 good years vs a QB with 15 good years...
If he stays healthy I see no reason he can’t be at this level for 12+ years.
As for his stats, from CBS Sports:
“Barkley has now totaled 100 yards from scrimmage or more in 11-of-12 regular season games for the Giants this season. The only other rookie to have done so is Eric Dickerson”
Very few RBs are remotely this productive for 12 years.
I can't think one, actually. Even the all-time greats are usually on the decline before 30.
Second, if, for example, Darnold fails, it will be claimed that the Jets ruined him, and he would have been HOF on the Giants.
Quote:
This may not be obvious to many Giants fans today, but by this time next year it will be very obvious. Josh Allen will ultimately separate himself from Mayfield, Rosen, and Darnold, and we Giants fan can then debate whether Gettleman should have taken Allen or Barkley. The next 5-7 years will be interesting as we imagine how many games the Giants would have won with Allen vs Barkley.
Wrong. Josh Allen is a Davis Webb clone.
Have you ever seen Allen play? I'm guessing if you had, you would never make a statement like this.
Yes both QBs have big arms and neither have been accurate passers. But that's where the similarity ends.
Allen is a far better athlete who can escape a pass rush and keep a play alive, something that Webb just can't do. Allen has also rushed for 234 yds in his last two games, including 135 yds on 9 carries yesterday.
Webb was cut and no team claimed him for their 53 man squad.
How long do you think Allen would last as a FA?
And one more point about Allen...
When it came to QBs last year supposedly DG preferred Darnold but Shurmur preferred Allen.
If Allen had ended up with the Giants his completion % likely would have exceeded 60% at some point, as most QBs (including Bradford and Eli) have seen their completion percentages rise dramatically in a Shurmur offense.
The bigger question is “Why is it so important to have your opinion validated on an internet message board?”
I'm glad to see that people's opinions on the subject have evolved.
My criticism of the pick as well. It's fair to pass on the QBs if you don't like them, however the presence of the QBs gives you an opportunity to get QB value. Barkley was a good pick, to argue that would be digging in your heels unnecessarily. However, I think a trade was there to be made with the Broncos and we still could have ended up with Barkley at that pick + 2-3 more premium picks. If Barkley is not there? You have Bradley Chubb and premium picks. He ran the card up without exploring that possibility, so we'll never really know. As good as he is, and I think he's the best RB in football, I don't think any RB is worth running the card up at #2 when there are QBs, a stud corner and a premium edge rusher on the board. You have leverage you may want to explore. This was my opinion after the draft and it hasn't changed since, I knew what type of player we were getting.
I'm not so sure there were any offers worth moving, considering it only took the Jets 3 2nd's to move from 6 to 3.
The bigger question is “Why is it so important to have your opinion validated on an internet message board?”
That isn't true. There are plenty of examples of draft picks that are better than the players passed over. If Saquon becomes a HOF RB, and Darnold little more than a journeyman QB, it is only "opinion" to say Saquon is the better player?
Quote:
Because it is an opinion. Opinions don’t get “settled,” they are expressed. People can agree or disagree, but there is no right answer that is magically revealed one day.
The bigger question is “Why is it so important to have your opinion validated on an internet message board?”
That isn't true. There are plenty of examples of draft picks that are better than the players passed over. If Saquon becomes a HOF RB, and Darnold little more than a journeyman QB, it is only "opinion" to say Saquon is the better player?
Yes, it is only opinion. If Darnold becomes a journeyman QB, who is to say that he would not have become more in the Giants system? Do you really believe all those QBs chosen by Cleveland couldn't hack the NFL, or maybe who picks you and the situation you are in matters?
Absolutely nobody can know what Darnold would be with the Giants because he wasn't drafted by them. Any conclusion on what he would have been is an opinion, not a fact.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
And who would have been the starting LG for the Giants? I assume in your scenario they'd have traded up from the second round to get Lamar Jackson.
Quote:
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
And who would have been the starting LG for the Giants? I assume in your scenario they'd have traded up from the second round to get Lamar Jackson.
I'm sure there were other avenues towards acquiring a guard besides Hernandez.
That is patently absurd. Eli's rookie season he played in 9 games, starting 7. Here is his line
W-L: 1-6
Cmp: 48.2%
TD: 6
INT: 9
Y/G:115.9
Y/A: 5.3
Are people really writing off Sam Darnold when his numbers are better than Eli's rookie numbers, and is two years younger than Eli when he started (as well as being the youngest opening day starter in NFL history)?
I guess Eli was going to be out of the league after his rookie contract, too.
Barkley has been electric and is an absolute freak of nature. But is our team really that much closer to being a high-powered offense and winning football team because of it? How long will Barkley be at that level? And how long will he be at that level before we are required to give a very large part of the salary cap to him?
How old/healthy will Barkley be by the time the Giants have a strong offensive line and a QB in or approaching his prime?
I saw a comment earlier suggesting that Barkley won round 1. But are we sure about that? Barkley is certainly better at his position now than any of the rookie QBs are at their position, but the teams that have those QBs are getting started on their growing pains now. If the Giants do draft a QB they plan to start, they will still have to deal with that QB's rookie developmental pains.
And the whole debate is dumb if you ask me. We have a great player and should move on. The Giants didn't sink their franchise like some say but it's not exactly a slam dunk win that he's the best thing we could have done with the pick either. Even playing at the level he is now.
Both sides are being ridiculous having this argument after every single game in Year 1.
Quote:
In comment 14203842 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
And who would have been the starting LG for the Giants? I assume in your scenario they'd have traded up from the second round to get Lamar Jackson.
I'm sure there were other avenues towards acquiring a guard besides Hernandez.
You mean in free agency? Not likely. If it were one of their 3rd round picks, then no Carter or BJ Hill.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
I may be miss-remembering this, but while I know you were touting Jackson early on, I thought you changed your mind on Jackson shortly after the combine.
Can't recall if it was Jackson's measured arm strength, wonderlick score, attitude or a combination of things, but I thought you had changed your mind about wanted to draft him.
That is patently absurd. Eli's rookie season he played in 9 games, starting 7. Here is his line
W-L: 1-6
Cmp: 48.2%
TD: 6
INT: 9
Y/G:115.9
Y/A: 5.3
Are people really writing off Sam Darnold when his numbers are better than Eli's rookie numbers, and is two years younger than Eli when he started (as well as being the youngest opening day starter in NFL history)?
I guess Eli was going to be out of the league after his rookie contract, too.
Barkley has been electric and is an absolute freak of nature. But is our team really that much closer to being a high-powered offense and winning football team because of it? How long will Barkley be at that level? And how long will he be at that level before we are required to give a very large part of the salary cap to him?
How old/healthy will Barkley be by the time the Giants have a strong offensive line and a QB in or approaching his prime?
I saw a comment earlier suggesting that Barkley won round 1. But are we sure about that? Barkley is certainly better at his position now than any of the rookie QBs are at their position, but the teams that have those QBs are getting started on their growing pains now. If the Giants do draft a QB they plan to start, they will still have to deal with that QB's rookie developmental pains.
1. How healthy are Darnold/Allen now? Obviously, QBs typically have longer careers/peaks, but we're knocking Barkley because it's assumed he's going to breakdown when 2 of the QBs taken after him have already missed time due to injuries. They're not expected to be recurring issues, but it's certainly possible the style of play of the QBs, especially Allen, contributed to those injuries (see Vick, Michael).
2. RBs like Barkley, Zeke, Gurley, Hunt can dramatically shorten a rookie QBs developmental curve whether Ds stack the box leaving more man coverage outside or safeties biting on play action.
3. Related to #1, but with those QBs sidelined for several weeks, they're not really going through any "growing pains".
Quote:
Absolutely wonderful. I'm happy he's a Giant. Doesn't mean he was the right pick.
The fact remains that this is a bad team that is on the verge of huge QB issues. There will be other opportunities at QBs, but the same would have been true about RBs.
And watching the Ravens yesterday I am getting more pissed off they didn't trade up a couple spots and get Lamar Jackson. Jackson + Barkley in the same backfield would have been thermonuclear.
I may be miss-remembering this, but while I know you were touting Jackson early on, I thought you changed your mind on Jackson shortly after the combine.
Can't recall if it was Jackson's measured arm strength, wonderlick score, attitude or a combination of things, but I thought you had changed your mind about wanted to draft him.
I was freaked out about his mom acting as his agent. I don't know if that's still the case and obviously Baltimore knows more about the situation than I do, and they apparently vetted him enough to feel good about drafting him.
Mayfield, Rosen, and Darnold have started 9 games already, and Allen started 7. And they will all start more before the season ends. I wouldn't dismiss that development, experience and "growing pains" just because they didn't start every game.
Darnold was reportedly the only QB they liked early.
Yes, it is only opinion. If Darnold becomes a journeyman QB, who is to say that he would not have become more in the Giants system? Do you really believe all those QBs chosen by Cleveland couldn't hack the NFL, or maybe who picks you and the situation you are in matters?
Absolutely nobody can know what Darnold would be with the Giants because he wasn't drafted by them. Any conclusion on what he would have been is an opinion, not a fact.
The idea that you cannot accurately evaluate a player's career because he might have been better with another team is a ridiculous assertion. Maybe we should nominate Jake Locker to the HOF, he may have been a HOF QB if only Tenn didn't draft him.
The elusive counter argument is that no other pick would have been guaranteed to be the right pick either.
Unless the Giants fix all of the other dependencies, I think they would be in relatively the same boat in the next few seasons no matter who they picked. Building a team around a 2018-drafted QB would require the same amount of FO improvement as doing it with Barkley.
In the meantime I'm ecstatic about Barkley, not just based on his skills but also his intangibles and leadership.
Let's try to play out a reasonable scenario:
2018: Giants finish around 6-10
2019: Status quo is maintained as Gettleman, Shurmur, and Eli return; more roster turnover takes place as the likes of Vernon and possibly Jenkins are released/traded; Eli QBs all or most of the 2019 games as team finishes 6-10 to 9-7 and out of the playoffs; Gettleman and Shurmur remain, Eli retires
2020: Shurmur is on notice that it's playoffs or else (think Coughlin in 2006), Gettleman may or may not still be the GM with Abrams waiting in the wings. Odds are they won't be bad enough to be in the Tua/Fromm mix unless they want to trade huge resources to get there. QB is...? Maybe the Giants compete, but with a new QB and Shurmur on notice I'd be skeptical.
2021: We are entering year 4 of Barkley (the year at which Gurley got a new contract), and there's a good chance we haven't even made the playoffs yet with him no matter how great (and healthy) he is. By now we may have a new GM and head coach to go with our new QB...will they want to pay a RB huge dollars?
We'll have seen some incredible plays from him, and I agree he's the kind of guy you want your daughter to bring home, but I think there's a better than OK chance that we waste him the same way we've wasted Beckham (since we drafted him our record is 33-46). And the big reason we will have wasted him - through no fault of his own - is that we will have been in the fog of QB purgatory for his first 3-4 years.
I just don't think the timing for this whole thing works.
When you have Eli’s counterparts from the 2004 draft class of Ben & Rivers still playing at such a high level, it likely impacted the decision to stick with him.
If I had to guess, Shurmur is on a much shorter leash than Gettleman is. Sticking with Eli was likely an organizational decision so the Barkley-Hernandez-Hill picks are doing well. I could see Shurmur getting next year with Eli with a playoffs expectation. He either earns the right to draft a blue chip QB or we have a new HC/QB going forward in 2020.
This will take a while to shake out but I’m having fun watching Barkley, he’s the most exciting player in the league IMO and I get more out of that than almost anything else. I’m fine rooting for him for 5+ years, if the Giants can’t make it work, shame on them.
This will take a while to shake out but I’m having fun watching Barkley, he’s the most exciting player in the league IMO and I get more out of that than almost anything else. I’m fine rooting for him for 5+ years, if the Giants can’t make it work, shame on them.
But then we're back to the discussion of:
- Difficulty of finding a QB vs. a RB
- Is it possible to build a team around a RB in today's NFL (I'd love to see it...run the ball and a devastating defense is my favorite football to watch, but is it even possible anymore?)
I would have loved...LOVED...if we had drafted both Barkley and Jackson, backed Jackson up with a couple mobile QBs, and resolved to run the ball 30-40 times a game split between Barkley, Jackson, Gallman, and someone else. It would have been a proactive approach - "THIS is the team we want to be."
I think Barkley is absolutely good enough to build the entire team around. I am very skeptical that the Giants will actually do it. We are 30th in the NFL in rushing attempts. Given the quality of our pass blocking, the investment we've made at RB, and the age/shellshock of our QB, that is beyond the pale.
Compare us with Seattle...a team that also drafted a first round RB, and a team that was also supposed to be pretty poor in the wake of huge personnel changes. They have committed to running the ball (1st in the NFL with 380 attempts - 130 more than NYG) despite their highly drafted RB being a disappointment.
Seattle was talked about coming into this year as being in a complete rebuild, and possibly one of the worst teams in the league this year. They had a resolve to run the football and are sitting at 7-5.
Will we show the same commitment to running the ball these next few years with Barkley? We haven't in year 1.
I think Barkley is absolutely good enough to build the entire team around. I am very skeptical that the Giants will actually do it.
Yep, that's the crux of my skepticism as well. But again, I think that concern ultimately applies no matter who they draft. I suppose it could be "easier" for a poorly-run organization to produce with a talented young QB than a talented young RB, but I'm not sure it can to a degree that will make them competitive with the big boys.
Quote:
Barkley should make life a lot easier for whoever the new QB is. By the time there will be more OL upgrades as well. It’s also very likely that if we drafted a QB at 2 atleast 2 of those years on a rookie contract would be waited, possibly more. The Bills, Cardinals, and Jets have major, major problems on offense - that can’t be ignored and that would be us too had we foregone Barkley for a QB.
This will take a while to shake out but I’m having fun watching Barkley, he’s the most exciting player in the league IMO and I get more out of that than almost anything else. I’m fine rooting for him for 5+ years, if the Giants can’t make it work, shame on them.
But then we're back to the discussion of:
- Difficulty of finding a QB vs. a RB
- Is it possible to build a team around a RB in today's NFL (I'd love to see it...run the ball and a devastating defense is my favorite football to watch, but is it even possible anymore?)
I would have loved...LOVED...if we had drafted both Barkley and Jackson, backed Jackson up with a couple mobile QBs, and resolved to run the ball 30-40 times a game split between Barkley, Jackson, Gallman, and someone else. It would have been a proactive approach - "THIS is the team we want to be."
I think Barkley is absolutely good enough to build the entire team around. I am very skeptical that the Giants will actually do it. We are 30th in the NFL in rushing attempts. Given the quality of our pass blocking, the investment we've made at RB, and the age/shellshock of our QB, that is beyond the pale.
Compare us with Seattle...a team that also drafted a first round RB, and a team that was also supposed to be pretty poor in the wake of huge personnel changes. They have committed to running the ball (1st in the NFL with 380 attempts - 130 more than NYG) despite their highly drafted RB being a disappointment.
Seattle was talked about coming into this year as being in a complete rebuild, and possibly one of the worst teams in the league this year. They had a resolve to run the football and are sitting at 7-5.
Will we show the same commitment to running the ball these next few years with Barkley? We haven't in year 1.