Who has changed their mind about drafting a QB this year?

Since he was off the board, Barkley is who I hoped we picked. We did, and I could not be happier.

For the next draft, if possible, take a pass rusher with the first round pick.

but I was not opposed to Barkley.

I did not want Darnold, Allen, Jackson. Was ok with Mayfield.

And it will be many years before we know if passing on a QB was the right call or not. Obviously, how we finish in the coming years and having the ability to draft Eli's replacement will also play a factor.

Barkley is a generational talent and the scary thing is he might only be scratching the surface. Kid is a model citizen on and off the field and perfect for the bright lights of NY. I am happy as hell they drafted him and the way the team has been playing is going to pay dividends next year as there is a sense of confidence in the locker room. Something the team had been lacking coming off a brutal 2017 season.

or Quenton Nelson after a slight trade if possible.

Those two were my wishlist. I never wanted a QB. No regrets whatsoever.

last year. I wanted Sam Darnold.
I was 100% WRONG - SB is the man - I'm a total convert..I love this kid and hope he is the face of the franchise for the next decade and half.

I feel pretty sure he would have taken the QB. Time will tell on that. I wanted Mayfield and believe that he and Barkley were the two guys DG was targeting. So we got a star, and IMO we�d have done great getting either of them.

... and he is such a humble person and great teammate. There is absolutely no looking back now. The good news is drafting Barkley does not preclude the Giants from finding a franchise QB in 2019 or 2020.

Under Eli
Dwayne Haskins - ( New Window )

In comment 14215492 Jints in Carolina said:

Quote:

Since he was off the board, Barkley is who I hoped we picked. We did, and I could not be happier. For the next draft, if possible, take a pass rusher with the first round pick.

Absolutely. Good post.

And likely out of reach 2020 draft (Tua, Fromms, etc)

Have build around Barkley..both lines first then back 7 of D afterwards.

Extend Eli..best theyre going to do at the position for awhile or some time yet

I liked Mayfield, too, but felt he was a poor fit for the Giants and NYC. I didn't like Darnold at all and I thought Allen was too much of a wild card to trust with such a high pick.

My current feelings are that there is no way that Barkley was the wrong pick but it may turn out that Rosen would've been just as good a pick. They both have Hall of Fame talent (IMO).

But said that if the RB is a game changer and NYG was absolutely sure of it they should take that player. And pleased to see he is........

I do think NYG should consider drafting one early this year. And if Eli keeps him on the bench for a while so be it, he can also get benched if he is not performing and the replacement is here.

Because I still believed in Eli. I just felt that you don't pass on a franchise QB in the draft no matter how good your 37-year old QB is. And as disappointed as I was that they passed on Rosen, I was pleased that it mean the clock had not officially started ticking on Eli. Not that it isn't ticking anyway, but there is no official "sell by" date to go with it.

I mentioned this in another post the other day.

If Eli and Barkley were both entering the draft at the same time, knowing what we know now, whom would you pick

I wanted Darnold because I believed l, still do, he could become the next Eli.

As a fan who watched every Barkley game at Penn State, I knew exactly the kind if player he is: and I love having him on the Giants.

He was without a doubt the best player in the draft. But given all this, I m not ready to say without any question he was the correct pick.

My personal belief is the quarterback is just that much more important than other positions.

That ship has sailed, I m on board, but I would have been happy with Darnold.

But, if they believe(d) that strongly in SB and not in any of the QBs, then go with your gut and get behind the decision moving forward.

Now, clearly SB is a gamechanging player. You can find a winning QB throughout the draft, now it's time to pull it off and build the lines up to control games, and work on the talent on defense.

We knew this would take more than one offseason to put a contender on the field.

that Darnold, Allen or Rosen would yield better results THIS YEAR than taking Barkley would not be thinking correctly. Wanting a young QB that could be a franchise quy is always about the future - 3-4 years down the road. It took Eli 4 years, Rivers sat for two years behind Brees, Big Ben had success out of the gate due to a great Steeler defense.

While Barkley is great, we still are no closer to solving the long term QB issue, and we are not having a winning season this year. I just don't believe the team will make a serious push for the SB with Eli anymore.

was the smarter play, especially in the long run. The position impacts wins considerably more than running backs. It�s not close.

And like I always say, the RB position is much easier to fill than almost any position on the field. It may be the most commoditized position in the game. They are like buying shower soap - tons of choices and easy to find.

now of course I'm thrilled with Barkley.

after watching the Oline come together and achieve mediocrity i'd be ok with sticking with Eli next year and building the lines.

I've watched the last few games (with our improved line) with a critical eye and there are certainly plays that a more athletic QB could have extended and Eli simply takes a sack or throws the ball into the ground, but Eli has also shown he is still better than the average NFL QB.

my wishlist this year is C, ER and cover Safety.

I would have taken a QB, Nelson, Chubb, or traded down. I thought #2 was way too high for a RB when you have massive questions marks up and down this roster. Barkley is the goods. I give credit where credit is due. He made the front office look smart by picking him. Now the biggest issue for this team going forward is to not languish in QB purgatory. Eli is done. He's not accurate, he's making the wrong throws, and he is not, and never was, mobile. Having Darnold or Rosen sit behind him for a year would have worked wonders. I know people are down on Darnold, but I want to see what happens when you actually give him a coach (think Goff) and some decent weapons. What's done is done and we'll see how all of the guys progress in the next 3 years.

For say 5-10 years I think drafting Barkley was a mistake. He might be the best running back in football already but he is still just a running back, will have a relatively short prime and will probably be greatly reduced as a player or out of football entirely in ten years. Darnold could potentially be leading the Jets for 15+ years at a far more important position.

I like Saquon but my main concern is that he might be in year four before the Giants really have a shot to compete and then you�re looking at a 3-4 year window where he can still be a major factor for the team. I say year four because year one is already gone, year two there�s now no obvious QB alternative to another season of old ass Eli, year three I assume they finally draft someone and he�ll be a rookie. Year four that drafted QB will (hopefully) be ready to really compete.

Still think the team isn�t a legit contender for anything (Division, WC, Super Bowl) until they acquire the next guy, even if it likely means now trading off a ton of draft capital to do so. That being said, Barkley is damn good. Put a better center and RT in front of him this spring and watch out. Let�s hope he stays healthy.

In comment 14215505 Dnew15 said:

Quote:

last year. I wanted Sam Darnold. I was 100% WRONG - SB is the man - I'm a total convert..I love this kid and hope he is the face of the franchise for the next decade and half.

Decade and a half. 15 years for a running back lmao

We will not know for years whether passing on a QB was the right move or not.

If Darnold shines as a Jet...gets them to the Superbowl before the Giants get back, then it is a different equation. If (knock on wood) Barkley blows out his knee in a game and is never the same RB....it's a different equation.

Are the Giants better this year because of Barkley...YES. Will they be better off in 3-4 years??? See me in 5 years.

As predicted.

I think they all will be adequate starters but none elite. Most interested to see if Mayfield can improve or is this the level he will stat at.

The guy in Pittsburgh still may turn out to be the best.

outside of Mayfield. I don�t regret our decision one bit. Some of these QBs may have good careers but none of them other than Mayfield have had an impact on winning games (I guess Jackson but he�s been more lucky than anything, he can�t throw at all). We�ve already seen Allen and Darnold miss games, Rosen has been getting pummeled as well.

We�ve got Barkley and a nice offense for whoever will be filling Eli�s shoes.

After the next few years the QB position will be watered down league wide. Once guys like Brady, Brees, Rivers, Eli, Ben, etc are gone all that�s left is shitty QBs with mobility who are injury prone with a few exceptions. In theory, the Giants won�t need a legitimate franchise QB to compete when that day comes.

beefing up DL and OL...if there's a QB they love in round 1 or 2, take the guy

I wanted Darnold. I knew Barkley was going to be very good but I didn't expect this. I still think Darnold will be a good QB but I have completely done a 180.

And Lamar Jackson.
Definitely been a mess.

Of course a running back's performance in his first year would look better than any QB. I still think 3-4 of the first round QBs will wind up in a Super Bowl before they're done. I don't think Saquon will, at least with the Giants, because we don't and won't have a QB who can take us there.

I wanted to get Lauletta later in the draft. That was a mistake, should have taken an OL.

my preference all along before the draft was to take a QB, however there was a huge caveat. If the Giants didn't feel strongly that any of the QBs were sure things, you cannot afford to miss on a player at the #2 pick, particularly at QB because that's how set franchises back. If you want to know why the Browns were the Browns for so long, you mix bad ownership with busts like Tim Couch, Brandon Weeden, and Johnny Football.

The safe/smartest pick was always Barkley.

The further reality, to quote John Madden, a quarterback's best friend is a running game. The Giants in getting Barkley, with an improved offensive line, can run their offense through him the next several years, that will set up the play action passing game which has been missing since Bradshaw left. This will allow the Giants to extend Eli's career at least one more year and open up the option to draft a QB this year to be ready to take over. I think the Giants have to take a QB this year and essentially do what I advocated in 2018. Have Eli start, the . young QB behind him to learn, and be ready to take over when Eli hangs them up. What has happened, as the OL has started to settle when the Giants ditched the scrubs who were on scholarship, and Barkley got more comfortable, and the Giants offense was able to understand the Shurmur system, things are working better. Basically, the Giants are putting together the pieces for the QB to plug into, not the other way round. This will allow the Giants to draft a QB who will work in their system. Lauletta was the first flyer to develop, and I expect them to go QB in round 1 or 2 next year and upgrade the talent.

In comment 14215532 JonC said:

Quote:

But, if they believe(d) that strongly in SB and not in any of the QBs, then go with your gut and get behind the decision moving forward. Now, clearly SB is a gamechanging player. You can find a winning QB throughout the draft, now it's time to pull it off and build the lines up to control games, and work on the talent on defense. We knew this would take more than one offseason to put a contender on the field.

I think this is strongly downplaying how hard it is to find a QB. This coaching staff also hasn't given much for us to be encouraged about.

We're 5-8. I know folks love to quote Bill Parcells around here, so I figure he's a good source to turn to: "We are what our record says we are."

In comment 14215572 WillieYoung said:

Quote:

Of course a running back's performance in his first year would look better than any QB. I still think 3-4 of the first round QBs will wind up in a Super Bowl before they're done. I don't think Saquon will, at least with the Giants, because we don't and won't have a QB who can take us there.

3-4 of them? All of them but Jackson went to bad franchises, I�d set the over/under at 1.5 and I�d take the under. Time will tell of course but to expect almost the entire crop of QBs to play in the Super Bowl is unrealistic.

how hard it is, and not forcing the pick. I can understand picking the sensational RB if you didn't believe in the QBs. It will be the same in 2019, and 2020.

As Matt said, you cannot afford to blow the #2 overall pick. The game is changing, the blue chip QBs are fewer and teams are paying more attention to their mental makeup and value to a franchise.

If there's no QB you believe in, then you're likely going to have to manufacture one outside the first round. You build the lines, the running game, the ability to stop the run, etc.

In comment 14215572 WillieYoung said:

Quote:

Of course a running back's performance in his first year would look better than any QB. I still think 3-4 of the first round QBs will wind up in a Super Bowl before they're done. I don't think Saquon will, at least with the Giants, because we don't and won't have a QB who can take us there.

Lol... these posts crack me up. Fucking Nick Foles won a SB last year. Blake fucking Bortles was a few plays away.

In comment 14215594 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 14215572 WillieYoung said: Quote: Of course a running back's performance in his first year would look better than any QB. I still think 3-4 of the first round QBs will wind up in a Super Bowl before they're done. I don't think Saquon will, at least with the Giants, because we don't and won't have a QB who can take us there. Lol... these posts crack me up. Fucking Nick Foles won a SB last year. Blake fucking Bortles was a few plays away.

exactly...and a guy named Hostetler won a Super Bowl too.

I'm perfectly content with Barkley.

If you're looking to the future, a QB has more impact long term than a running back. I'm not a talent evaluator, so it's possible that the Giants didn't think any of these QBs were franchise QB worthy, in which case SB makes 100% sense.

That being said, I love Barkley, I love watching him play. He's amazing and makes the game exciting every time he touches the ball. Hopefully we can find a long term solution for QB going forward so it lines up with SB's window.

In comment 14215589 JonC said:

Quote:

how hard it is, and not forcing the pick. I can understand picking the sensational RB if you didn't believe in the QBs. It will be the same in 2019, and 2020. As Matt said, you cannot afford to blow the #2 overall pick. The game is changing, the blue chip QBs are fewer and teams are paying more attention to their mental makeup and value to a franchise. If there's no QB you believe in, then you're likely going to have to manufacture one outside the first round. You build the lines, the running game, the ability to stop the run, etc.

I disagree with the notion that the game is changing any meaningful sense away from big time QBs. I know much of the board insists on depicting Goff, Trubisky, and Mahomes and the like as system QBs, but as I see it, it was only a matter of time before a new cast of franchise QBs emerged to take the mantle from the Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers generation. Obviously they remain excellent, but an excellent QB is a precondition for sustained success.

I'm fine with the SB pick. I'm not thrilled about it in retrospect nor do I think it a colossal mistake. But the idea that there isn't a reasonable debate to be had (and you are not making this claim) is close-minded.

This is at best a mediocre football team. That's at best. The places where this team needs serious talent infusions--pass rusher & QB--are literally the hardest places to fill and the cornerstones of any SB contender (lest we forget we won our SBs on the backs of Eli and our DEs). We're building this team backwards and we're not going to be able to pick the best talents at each position in each draft. Now, if your scouts evaluate better than other teams, then this is moot and I'm happy to say that's possible. I hope it happens, but I'm not banking on it either.

Said Eli has a few more years left, give him an average oline and foremost a 50/50 ball catching receiver or TE.

Would have liked Mayfield in hindsight of course, hopefully Eli can win us two more SBs and then we draft Trevor Lawrence is my awesome plan.

In comment 14215594 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 14215572 WillieYoung said: Quote: Of course a running back's performance in his first year would look better than any QB. I still think 3-4 of the first round QBs will wind up in a Super Bowl before they're done. I don't think Saquon will, at least with the Giants, because we don't and won't have a QB who can take us there. Lol... these posts crack me up. Fucking Nick Foles won a SB last year. Blake fucking Bortles was a few plays away.

If you want a QB who if he gets on a hot streak with a sufficiently good roster can lead you to the SB, then hell, we can sign Ryan Fitzpatrick and hope one of his 4 game hot streaks come in January.

If you want a long term contender who wins double digit games consistently and finds itself in the playoffs (and by definition having a shot to win a SB EVERY year), then you need a franchise QB.

and I do want the Giants to draft a QB at 1.

In comment 14215614 Ash_3 said:

Quote:

In comment 14215589 JonC said: Quote: how hard it is, and not forcing the pick. I can understand picking the sensational RB if you didn't believe in the QBs. It will be the same in 2019, and 2020. As Matt said, you cannot afford to blow the #2 overall pick. The game is changing, the blue chip QBs are fewer and teams are paying more attention to their mental makeup and value to a franchise. If there's no QB you believe in, then you're likely going to have to manufacture one outside the first round. You build the lines, the running game, the ability to stop the run, etc. I disagree with the notion that the game is changing any meaningful sense away from big time QBs. I know much of the board insists on depicting Goff, Trubisky, and Mahomes and the like as system QBs, but as I see it, it was only a matter of time before a new cast of franchise QBs emerged to take the mantle from the Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers generation. Obviously they remain excellent, but an excellent QB is a precondition for sustained success. I'm fine with the SB pick. I'm not thrilled about it in retrospect nor do I think it a colossal mistake. But the idea that there isn't a reasonable debate to be had (and you are not making this claim) is close-minded. This is at best a mediocre football team. That's at best. The places where this team needs serious talent infusions--pass rusher & QB--are literally the hardest places to fill and the cornerstones of any SB contender (lest we forget we won our SBs on the backs of Eli and our DEs). We're building this team backwards and we're not going to be able to pick the best talents at each position in each draft. Now, if your scouts evaluate better than other teams, then this is moot and I'm happy to say that's possible. I hope it happens, but I'm not banking on it either.

There's fewer blue chip QBs reaching the NFL. That fact is changing the game, along with the rules favoring offense and mobile QBs who can break down defenses by extending plays and buying time for receivers to separate and find holes.

Mahomes is blue chip, I wouldn't say the other two are yet, but they were plugged into sound situations with innovative staffs. Thinking those three are blue chip is where fans tend to exaggerate the ascending QBs, imv.

Ultimately, you still have to believe in the QB! Giants loved Mahomes but fell short in going after him. The others I'd consider red chips for now in terms of their actual talent.

It's going to take more than ONE offseason to see if this thing is headed in the right direction. It will take more than one offseason (I believe) to find the next Giants QB.

It is what it is. Can't force it, can't summon it, might have to manufacture it.

In comment 14215642 JonC said:

Quote:

In comment 14215614 Ash_3 said: Quote: In comment 14215589 JonC said: Quote: how hard it is, and not forcing the pick. I can understand picking the sensational RB if you didn't believe in the QBs. It will be the same in 2019, and 2020. As Matt said, you cannot afford to blow the #2 overall pick. The game is changing, the blue chip QBs are fewer and teams are paying more attention to their mental makeup and value to a franchise. If there's no QB you believe in, then you're likely going to have to manufacture one outside the first round. You build the lines, the running game, the ability to stop the run, etc. I disagree with the notion that the game is changing any meaningful sense away from big time QBs. I know much of the board insists on depicting Goff, Trubisky, and Mahomes and the like as system QBs, but as I see it, it was only a matter of time before a new cast of franchise QBs emerged to take the mantle from the Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers generation. Obviously they remain excellent, but an excellent QB is a precondition for sustained success. I'm fine with the SB pick. I'm not thrilled about it in retrospect nor do I think it a colossal mistake. But the idea that there isn't a reasonable debate to be had (and you are not making this claim) is close-minded. This is at best a mediocre football team. That's at best. The places where this team needs serious talent infusions--pass rusher & QB--are literally the hardest places to fill and the cornerstones of any SB contender (lest we forget we won our SBs on the backs of Eli and our DEs). We're building this team backwards and we're not going to be able to pick the best talents at each position in each draft. Now, if your scouts evaluate better than other teams, then this is moot and I'm happy to say that's possible. I hope it happens, but I'm not banking on it either. There's fewer blue chip QBs reaching the NFL. That fact is changing the game, along with the rules favoring offense and mobile QBs who can break down defenses by extending plays and buying time for receivers to separate and find holes. Mahomes is blue chip, I wouldn't say the other two are yet, but they were plugged into sound situations with innovative staffs. Thinking those three are blue chip is where fans tend to exaggerate the ascending QBs, imv. Ultimately, you still have to believe in the QB! Giants loved Mahomes but fell short in going after him. The others I'd consider red chips for now in terms of their actual talent. It's going to take more than ONE offseason to see if this thing is headed in the right direction. It will take more than one offseason (I believe) to find the next Giants QB. It is what it is. Can't force it, can't summon it, might have to manufacture it.

I just happen to disagree with the premise that there are fewer blue chip QBs. Who is or isn't a blue chip is relative to the sort of game being played. I think the number of blue chips is relatively stable over time.

the numbers don't agree, to my eye.

When Brady/Brees/Rodgers/Ben are gone, it will be more obvious.

that you do not need a HoF QB to win the Super Bowl. Having one makes it easier. I think the league has changed enough that an solid RPO type QB will be sufficient. I think the cost of that "elite" type QB will force teams to look in another direction.

and it was Barkley or bust for me in the draft.

In comment 14215559 WillVAB said:

Quote:

After the next few years the QB position will be watered down league wide. Once guys like Brady, Brees, Rivers, Eli, Ben, etc are gone all that�s left is shitty QBs with mobility who are injury prone with a few exceptions. In theory, the Giants won�t need a legitimate franchise QB to compete when that day comes.

Interesting take as so many are NFL-ready out of college. Your idea is provocative and worth pondering.

look no further than the dearth of actual quality starters in the league now.

entering elite or very good territory in just a couple of drafts. so what is this about the death of elite qbs?

trubisky seems to be a quality starter as well. i�m sure one or two from this class will be there as well amongst mayfield and another qb.

the attributes have changed, having a quality qb will continue to be important. there may be some more democratization here as qb ratings are at an all time high.....but still seems like investing is required.

Mahomes and potentially Wentz, if he recovers from the knee, would belong in the elite category.

The others are moving towards very good, but not there yet. Very good isn't elite.

How far do you want to split the hair, I suppose. But, if the discussion is blue chip QB draft picks, your availability of prospects is fewer and seemingly shrinking these days.

But it way too early to make a determination. I'm of the opinion that you can't really evaluate draft picks till a few years after the draft. It really depends on how the other QBs develop. If the giants never find a good QB and turn into the Barry Sanders era Lions it may not be worth it.

The other argument against the decision has to do with the salary cap allocation. If the giants have to go FA to find a good QB, and one of the QBs this year turns out good, then the math goes against this decision. A top draft RB + a top FA QB is far more expensive then a top draft QB + a top FA RB.

which is supposedly a Shurmur strong suit.

Hard to see which QBs are available a year away, but it seems clear NYG wagered on PS to keep Eli afloat as long as possible, and to manufacture his successor if need be. That's where Lauletta comes in, and the decision to pick SB and build around him and the QB position.

it was back around February.

I was in the QB camp, but had an open mind and the more I read (including here on BBI) and saw of Barkley, I changed my mind. Very happy with results.

I said take a QB like Darnold or Allen...provided the Giants staff feels like they have a franchise guy.

Else, take Barkley.
I was pleased.

Darnold or Rosen. Allen would have made me sick.

The situation was as bad as it possibly could have been for using that pick on a QB. Just bad, bad, bad.

The team had almost none of the things you want in place for a high investment at QB.

I was disappointed when they chose Barkley after the Browns passed on Darnold. With each passing game I am happier with the pick of Barkley. There is no such thing as a perfect player but Barkley is the closest thing.

We still don�t have a QB and it doesn�t like like we�ll have a shot at any of the top ones coming out in the next year pr two (barring a catastophic loss of Barkley/Beckham).

So while I enjoy watching Barkley, I am bummed that we appear to be entering another Dave Brown/Danny Kannell/Kent Graham period. And that sucks.

I don�t want to be the 90s Lions, as much as I loved Barry Sanders (he was/is my favorite non-Giant player).

for a boatload of picks. I felt that the team had so many holes to plug that it would have been the best move if a trading partner was found. I LOVED Barkley, but felt that we could find a good rb later. Didnt like the QB's for various reasons...Darnold's INT's general ball security, Rosen's potential for injury, Allen's scattershot accuracy.

NOW......I still would have loved to have those extra picks, but man, Barkley! Holy Crap. I cant recall a Giant since LT that I cant wait to see play every week, every play, just to see what he is going to do. He is, as they say, worth the price of admission. Glad we didnt pass him up.

but that timeline has been accelerated, it isn�t 2004 anymore. Sitting for a year isn�t in the cards, it�s a waste of time from a cost perspective and cost is a huge part of this.

Heading into year 2 Darnold, Rosen and Allen have a ton of work to do and my guess is 2 of the 3 will still be on losing teams. So then we are on to year 3 where halftime the cheap contract is now gone.

It isn�t the end all be all but it�s a factor especially when you look at how the Eagles and Seahawks won (Wentz and Wilson on rookie deals) which is basically the new blueprint of team construction. That isn�t to say you can�t pay your QB and then win, it�s just becomes harder due to cap space.

i understand your thought process. however how many elite qbs are there at any given time? two to three? brady and brees and p manning fit the bill the last decade. rivers roeth and eli to me we�re in the very good club. Wilson and Romo represented in that very good club as later picks.

seems like the same applies now.

as ash said the number of blue chippers seems stable-a truly elite qb is produced every few drafts and a number of very good ones emerge typically with an early pick.

where i do think we see a difference is a �good� qb can be had with less effort and investment... a lot to do with passing inflation we are seeing through duke changes and the athletes and systems being used....

because I think it's much more likely NYG will be building without a blue chip QB prospect for the next year, perhaps more.

Quote:

Big Blue '56 : 7:44 am Let�s not debate SB vs any of the drafted QBs, that�s been beaten to death.

...every post proceeds to debate SB vs any of the drafted QBs...

I don't think any of this year's QBs are worth our 1st round pick.

Hell, if there is no blue chip OL or DE/Edge available, I think we should trade our pick for a #1 in 2020 and make a move for Tua.

The team needs Eli's successor. If DG/PS see a player in this draft that they believes can be the next franchise QB, then they need to do what they can to get that individual. But, by no means should they reach for anyone just to fill the need.

In comment 14215743 John In CO said:

Quote:

for a boatload of picks. I felt that the team had so many holes to plug that it would have been the best move if a trading partner was found. I LOVED Barkley, but felt that we could find a good rb later. Didnt like the QB's for various reasons...Darnold's INT's general ball security, Rosen's potential for injury, Allen's scattershot accuracy. NOW......I still would have loved to have those extra picks, but man, Barkley! Holy Crap. I cant recall a Giant since LT that I cant wait to see play every week, every play, just to see what he is going to do. He is, as they say, worth the price of admission. Glad we didnt pass him up.

You read my mind, I couldn't have said it any better.

wishful thinking in this thread and the board about what it would take to build a consistent contender, i.e. the idea that the franchise QB model has somehow become obsolete.

let's not discuss SB vs the QBs, but....

let's discuss if you're happy we took SB over the QBs?

it's the same old beaten to death conversation.

I wanted to trade down and accumulate picks, but am still happy SB is on the team. He is worthy of all the hype.

but rather teams are embracing ways to build systems that can manufacture a productive QB as a cog in a contender.

Whether it's enough to win a championship remains to be seen. But, I'd much prefer picking Barkley over a QB you don't believe in.

I'd heard the Giants only liked Darnold, and he wasn't top 4 on their board. That says quite a lot.

I did not want Barkley. I felt like the career life span of a RB is too short to invest that a high of a pick on one, and that they are too subject to injury to take that gamble. I also tended to think that RBs are mostly fungible, and mostly just feed on whatever blocking their o-line gives them, for better or worse.

I was dead fucking wrong. Barkley is a once-in-a-lifetime talent, and a young man of outstanding character to boot.

In comment 14215836 Ash_3 said:

Quote:

wishful thinking in this thread and the board about what it would take to build a consistent contender, i.e. the idea that the franchise QB model has somehow become obsolete.

Who said its obsolete though? I keep reading those claims but no one really states that.

I've gone on record and still believe that the franchise QB model is CHANGING and that you can win with many styles of play, not just being an elite pocket passer. And I think that's already been proven several times over. I also think blindly paying average QB's is going to stop soon. Hasn't happened yet (unless you count Cousins in Washington) but I think it will (something I can't prove but its gotta give eventually).

for me the choice was Chubb -- but I am really liking Barkley

when Barkley was chosen over Darnold. He was the only QB I wanted, and I assumed through draft day that he was going #1 to Cleveland. Passing on him for a RB was a tough pill to swallow.

As of now, I'd still LEAN toward Darnold but it's certainly not the slam dunk I thought it was, and I always allowed for the possibility the Giants could find a suitable QB within a year or two to succeed Eli. It's in the best interest of the NY media - and Jets fans - to pretend the Giants made a boneheaded decision and will never have access to another good QB, but it's a ridiculous premise.

I was completely in the camp of draft a QB. I wanted Mayfield or Rosen. Mayfield looks good, he wasn't available. Rosen, we need to see more to know. Twist my arm, make me choose, I like Barkley...A lot. He is good enough to build an offense around, even with today's rules that favor passing. Do it, build a physical, knock people off the ball OL and get the fuck out of this kid's way. His intangibles are as impressive as his physical ones. He is as good as I have ever seen. I remember watching the rookie season of the Tyler Rose thinking I was seeing something special. I have not seen anything like it until this year. Earl just looked dominant, like he was on another level from everyone else. Saquon is better, give him the ball more.

In comment 14215840 fkap said:

Quote:

let's not discuss SB vs the QBs, but.... let's discuss if you're happy we took SB over the QBs? it's the same old beaten to death conversation. I wanted to trade down and accumulate picks, but am still happy SB is on the team. He is worthy of all the hype.

Not true at all. Some posters may have taken it in that direction. As I stressed, it is not about entrenched SB people vs entrenched QB people . Rather it�s about whether or not the entrenched, �Giants made a mistake not taking one of the top rated QBs� people have changed their mind(s). That is, do they NOW FEEL that the Giants did NOT make a mistake by passing on a QB, Their previously held POV

That�s basically who I wanted to hear from. To see how many have done a 180, If at all

after he destroyed the combine I was very concerned the Browns would take him #1 and then get Mayfield #4...

was happy when Giants took him.. knew any QB taken wouldnt not play the first year anyway..

Giants really have to think about getting a QB in this draft..

Before the draft I was mostly concerned with the overall value of a RB at the 2nd pick of the draft. I wasn�t convinced one way or another about any of the QBs, but I said I would have picked Rosen at 2 as he seemed the most NFL ready with best college career, measurable and intangibles and I didn�t like Mayfield for any number of the same reasons. I still think JR was the best QB in this draft but only time will tell.

And I�m still worried about the durability of any RB in the NFL.

But... yeah, Barkley is an amazing player and he seems to be tremendous charecter person. I�m more than happy with the pick.

In comment 14215836 Ash_3 said:

Quote:

wishful thinking in this thread and the board about what it would take to build a consistent contender, i.e. the idea that the franchise QB model has somehow become obsolete.

The model is definitely changing. If you go w a mobile QB the prospect of him missing 4+ games a year is more of a likelihood than an unlucky event.

I also don�t see a discernible difference between most of the young franchise QBs around the league. Is there really a difference between Lamar Jackson v Dak Prescott v Cam Newton v Wentz? To me they�re all pretty much the same and guys like them are available in round 1 every year.

In comment 14215531 joeinpa said:

Quote:

I mentioned this in another post the other day. If Eli and Barkley were both entering the draft at the same time, knowing what we know now, whom would you pick I wanted Darnold because I believed l, still do, he could become the next Eli. As a fan who watched every Barkley game at Penn State, I knew exactly the kind if player he is: and I love having him on the Giants. He was without a doubt the best player in the draft. But given all this, I m not ready to say without any question he was the correct pick. My personal belief is the quarterback is just that much more important than other positions. That ship has sailed, I m on board, but I would have been happy with Darnold.

This is such an overly simplistic way of looking at things. Do you mean that Sam Darnold can be Eli and you're assuming the 2 SB wins or that Sam Darnold could be an Eli level QB? I hate to say it and I know it's not popular but I would NOT trade Barkley for him if it's the latter.

Eli Manning level is decent but not anything spectacular. You can't assume another Eli Manning will duplicate his results. There were a million different factors that went into those SBs. Start off with the fact that the two SB winning teams were 9-7 and 10-6. The Giants missed the playoffs with a 9-7 record in 2012 and a 10-6 record in 2010. They were lucky that they even made the playoffs those years. And both years they were a play or two of having a worse record and not making the playoffs. We don't have a furious comeback and a goalline stand against a backup RB in game 3 of the 2007 season and they got 0-3 and likely don't make the playoffs. JPP doesn't block a field goal against Dallas, we likely miss that year too. Plus, those wins that the Giants had many of those games could have gone either way. So even if another Eli had the same supporting cast and played the same teams he'd still likely not win 2 SBs. Add to the fact that he wouldn't have been on the same team and supporting cast the probability that another Eli would give you those SBs is even less likely. Plus it's not like if Eli didn't get his rings in 07 or 11 that would be counterbalanced by him coming close another year, he hasn't. He hasn't even been close to winning a playoff game outside of 07 and 11, other than in 06 (those losses were not even close to all his fault). Bottom line, would I take Barkley or a QB whose play has been more or less slightly above average, I take Barkley. Good scouting can get you an Eli in most drafts.

I understand DG's logic.

That said, when I read about Eli being extended, I am stunned. Eli had what I thought was a horrific game against the Bears. He was missing open WRs, throwing too many passes that were close to being intercepted and folding under pressure regularly. Then we play the Redskins, who are not a functional NFL team at this point, and some people are actually talking about Eli playing past next season.

Eli needs to be cut in February. It's necessary for the franchise to move on.

At the time I was lukewarm on Barkley at #2, I knew we helped ourselves but felt we missed an opportunity to completely transform our franchise through a bounty of picks or franchise QB. Outside of how consistent Barkley's big play ability is, nothing he's doing now has come as a complete shock to me. He's hitting the ceiling that anybody with two eyes could see, as our GM said "my grandmother could scout him". At the time, I felt that there wasn't any margin for error though, if he topped out as a Melvin Gordon type then it would have been a bad pick...and Melvin Gordon is a great player. So he's a known HOF talent vs. "HOF potential and a high floor" prospect now. That does change things, that limited margin for error has evaporated and we know he's hitting his ceiling.

I'm thrilled he's a Giant and that's all the really matters. I think the Giants should now double down on Barkley further and funnel resources into running their offense through him as if he were their franchise QB. That's important going forward.

In comment 14215992 cosmicj said:

Quote:

I understand DG's logic. That said, when I read about Eli being extended, I am stunned. Eli had what I thought was a horrific game against the Bears. He was missing open WRs, throwing too many passes that were close to being intercepted and folding under pressure regularly. Then we play the Redskins, who are not a functional NFL team at this point, and some people are actually talking about Eli playing past next season. Eli needs to be cut in February. It's necessary for the franchise to move on.

You mean read opinions on BBI re Eli extension, NOT that he has actually been extended, unbeknownst to me?

When BBIers post that he should be extended. He hasn't been extended and I hope he won't be.

In comment 14215992 cosmicj said:

Quote:

I understand DG's logic. That said, when I read about Eli being extended, I am stunned. Eli had what I thought was a horrific game against the Bears. He was missing open WRs, throwing too many passes that were close to being intercepted and folding under pressure regularly. Then we play the Redskins, who are not a functional NFL team at this point, and some people are actually talking about Eli playing past next season. Eli needs to be cut in February. It's necessary for the franchise to move on.

I guess the Rams shouldn�t extend Goff then by this logic.

are banking on is that the QB we would have taken if not for Barkley (you can't just stack the odds in your favor and say one of the three) would have been a very good QB AND the Giants won't get a very good QB in upcoming drafts.

underperforming for about 2 seasons is exactly equivalent to an emerging young QB leading his team to a #1 seed. Exactly the same. You got me there with that logic.

In comment 14216005 cosmicj said:

Quote:

When BBIers post that he should be extended. He hasn't been extended and I hope he won't be.

I thought so, but the way read it, my first thought was, did I miss something overnight. Pretty stupid of me as it would have been all over BBI..🙁

a younger stud QB that moves a bit

In comment 14215920 Thegratefulhead said:

Quote:

I was completely in the camp of draft a QB. I wanted Mayfield or Rosen. Mayfield looks good, he wasn't available. Rosen, we need to see more to know. Twist my arm, make me choose, I like Barkley...A lot. He is good enough to build an offense around, even with today's rules that favor passing. Do it, build a physical, knock people off the ball OL and get the fuck out of this kid's way. His intangibles are as impressive as his physical ones. He is as good as I have ever seen. I remember watching the rookie season of the Tyler Rose thinking I was seeing something special. I have not seen anything like it until this year. Earl just looked dominant, like he was on another level from everyone else. Saquon is better, give him the ball more.

I get why you think SB is that special, But that's really tough to do - build an offense primarily around the RB. The rules just dictate too much in the other direction where you should pass to win.

SB is dynamic; he's got a high entertainment value. But teams will figure out a way to limit his success and force Giants to win in the air. It's just the math of the league...

In comment 14216078 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 14215920 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: I was completely in the camp of draft a QB. I wanted Mayfield or Rosen. Mayfield looks good, he wasn't available. Rosen, we need to see more to know. Twist my arm, make me choose, I like Barkley...A lot. He is good enough to build an offense around, even with today's rules that favor passing. Do it, build a physical, knock people off the ball OL and get the fuck out of this kid's way. His intangibles are as impressive as his physical ones. He is as good as I have ever seen. I remember watching the rookie season of the Tyler Rose thinking I was seeing something special. I have not seen anything like it until this year. Earl just looked dominant, like he was on another level from everyone else. Saquon is better, give him the ball more. I get why you think SB is that special, But that's really tough to do - build an offense primarily around the RB. The rules just dictate too much in the other direction where you should pass to win. SB is dynamic; he's got a high entertainment value. But teams will figure out a way to limit his success and force Giants to win in the air. It's just the math of the league...

The beauty of it is he is also a weapon in the passing game.

In comment 14216078 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 14215920 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: I was completely in the camp of draft a QB. I wanted Mayfield or Rosen. Mayfield looks good, he wasn't available. Rosen, we need to see more to know. Twist my arm, make me choose, I like Barkley...A lot. He is good enough to build an offense around, even with today's rules that favor passing. Do it, build a physical, knock people off the ball OL and get the fuck out of this kid's way. His intangibles are as impressive as his physical ones. He is as good as I have ever seen. I remember watching the rookie season of the Tyler Rose thinking I was seeing something special. I have not seen anything like it until this year. Earl just looked dominant, like he was on another level from everyone else. Saquon is better, give him the ball more. I get why you think SB is that special, But that's really tough to do - build an offense primarily around the RB. The rules just dictate too much in the other direction where you should pass to win. SB is dynamic; he's got a high entertainment value. But teams will figure out a way to limit his success and force Giants to win in the air. It's just the math of the league...

It can be reasonably argued that a pretty much washed up Favre in 2010 had one of his best stat years with Pederson as the centerpiece

In comment 14216084 Matt M. said:

Quote:

The beauty of it is he is also a weapon in the passing game.

Right. Which means you need a quality trigger man... ;)

First, I always felt Barkley was, by far, the best player available in the draft. Second, I didn't look at this crop and feel anyone was a surefire franchise QB. I feel the same now.

For me, the real issue is what to do this draft. I am less enamored with this crop of QBs. What is our long-term plan for QB? Even if Eli is our starter next year, I can't envision a scenario where he is a Giant beyond next season.

In comment 14215992 cosmicj said:

Quote:

Eli needs to be cut in February. It's necessary for the franchise to move on.

The Giants need an exit plan, and good one to pull this off.
Can they get Sloter from the Vikings?

In comment 14216086 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

It can be reasonably argued that a pretty much washed up Favre in 2010 had one of his best stat years with Pederson as the centerpiece

I think you mean 2009. Favre fell apart in 2010.

I don't think Peterson was the centerpiece. Favre was still a legitimate threat and really gave that team balance. The Vikes were just a really balanced offensive team that year...

For those who did not want a QB last year this is a worse year for a QB.

Listening to Kiper and other draft prognosticators it is possible that none of this years crop would have been drafted in the first round last year.

The top 4 qbs last year were consider better prospects than any of the QBs this year.

It would be awful if the Giants reached this year and selected a QB that they were not fully convinced is a future franchise player.

What compounds their decision is that the 2019 crop appears to be talented and there will be depth.


Continue to build the trenches.

I was a trade-down nut last year, as most often, and last year more so than typically.

That being said, once the pick was made, run game being a major emphasis, "makes sense".

Now...damn that young man is a heck of a player! Damn! Great.

Is there a stand out linebacker? Free safety?

Let's revisit this a year from now when the Jets get Darnold some help and possibly competent coaching. There is a lot to like. Plus, I've no idea what NYG transition plan is. It's hard to win in this league without quality QB.

had very few draft picks and desperately needed players we could put on the field this season--O-linemen and DBs.

As for Barkley: BPA all the way! Always loved the pick.

In comment 14216221 UberAlias said:

Quote:

Let's revisit this a year from now when the Jets get Darnold some help and possibly competent coaching. There is a lot to like. Plus, I've no idea what NYG transition plan is. It's hard to win in this league without quality QB.

You're third sentence reveals a lot (not blaming you, just reality). We don't know, and that's OK. But we have a better foundation now that we have Barkley so i'm optimistic regardless of what route we take at QB.

What if we take Darnold, have no running game, and he goes through 1 or 2 coaching changes on his rookie contract? Very real possibility had we drafted him, and that would be awful.

Put aside your what ifs, (mine is trade down-ism), if your not enjoying The Barkely, turn in your damn fan card!!!!!!

In comment 14216249 Marty in Albany said:

Quote:

had very few draft picks and desperately needed players we could put on the field this season--O-linemen and DBs. As for Barkley: BPA all the way! Always loved the pick.

Give the kid some time and a few chances. Pre-season. Dave Te had Kyle as a 2nd rounder. Look at his college tape and his Sr. Bowl too.

won't come for a few years.

And all of the rookies have had mixed results. Time will tell though if it was the right call especially if we have years of mediocrity and inconsistent QB play ahead

In comment 14215572 WillieYoung said:

Quote:

Of course a running back's performance in his first year would look better than any QB. I still think 3-4 of the first round QBs will wind up in a Super Bowl before they're done. I don't think Saquon will, at least with the Giants, because we don't and won't have a QB who can take us there.

So you�re willing to give three or four shitty teams the benefit of the doubt, along with those rookie QBs and proclaim that they will all play in Super Bowls but the giants have no shot.

Ok. That�s ridiculous.

But I've already seen this same thread three times now.

These similar threads were ALL started by posters who wanted the Giants to draft Barkley. So it gives the impression that what the thread starters are really asking is...

"Are any of you dumb asses that wanted to draft a QB over Barkley now willing to admit that you were wrong?"

All three thread starters know that talented rookie QBs take time to develop while talented rookie RBs can dominate in year 1. Yet they still insist on checking in to see if we've changed our mind yet.

Unless I'm wrong neither Mahomes nor Goff even played in their rookie year. Maybe we should give it a little time and let it all play out.

In comment 14216486 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

But I've already seen this same thread three times now. These similar threads were ALL started by posters who wanted the Giants to draft Barkley. So it gives the impression that what the thread starters are really asking is... "Are any of you dumb asses that wanted to draft a QB over Barkley now willing to admit that you were wrong?" All three thread starters know that talented rookie QBs take time to develop while talented rookie RBs can dominate in year 1. Yet they still insist on checking in to see if we've changed our mind yet. Unless I'm wrong neither Mahomes nor Goff even played in their rookie year. Maybe we should give it a little time and let it all play out.

I agree with what your saying about why these threads keep popping up, but I like that you mentioned Goff & Mahomes.

Both those teams did it the right way. They didn't draft those guys and build their teams around them...which is exactly what wanting the Giants to draft a QB was asking for.

Both those franchises had been building those teams, then added Goff or Mahomes.

In comment 14216495 Motley Two said:

Quote:

In comment 14216486 Jim in Tampa said: Quote: But I've already seen this same thread three times now. These similar threads were ALL started by posters who wanted the Giants to draft Barkley. So it gives the impression that what the thread starters are really asking is... "Are any of you dumb asses that wanted to draft a QB over Barkley now willing to admit that you were wrong?" All three thread starters know that talented rookie QBs take time to develop while talented rookie RBs can dominate in year 1. Yet they still insist on checking in to see if we've changed our mind yet. Unless I'm wrong neither Mahomes nor Goff even played in their rookie year. Maybe we should give it a little time and let it all play out. I agree with what your saying about why these threads keep popping up, but I like that you mentioned Goff & Mahomes. Both those teams did it the right way. They didn't draft those guys and build their teams around them...which is exactly what wanting the Giants to draft a QB was asking for. Both those franchises had been building those teams, then added Goff or Mahomes.

Many people have also mentioned the Rams as one of the teams that "did it right" in that they added key pieces first (like Gurley and Donald) before adding the QB, like it was all part of their master plan and a blueprint that should be followed.

But the Rams weren't piking at the top of the draft when they selected Gurley and Donald. When they had the chance to pick in the top spot they took the QB, Goff.

Does anyone really think that if the Rams WERE picking at 1 or 2 in the years Gurley and Donald were selected that the Rams would have passed on the QB, when top-rated QBs were available? I don't.

And if the Rams finished with a slightly better record the year they selected Goff and they were a talented team with no QB, would anyone be pointing to them as the team that was smart for waiting to draft their QB?

The Giants may not be as lucky as the Rams. And if they try to follow that blueprint and fail to land a QB (when they could have had one last year) then we could be in for our very own Barry Sanders experience.

although Mahomes not extensively:

Quote:

Unless I'm wrong neither Mahomes nor Goff even played in their rookie year

Mahomes started the final game of the regular season last year, but Goff played half the year as the starter his rookie year.

In comment 14216512 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

In comment 14216495 Motley Two said: Quote: In comment 14216486 Jim in Tampa said: Quote: But I've already seen this same thread three times now. These similar threads were ALL started by posters who wanted the Giants to draft Barkley. So it gives the impression that what the thread starters are really asking is... "Are any of you dumb asses that wanted to draft a QB over Barkley now willing to admit that you were wrong?" All three thread starters know that talented rookie QBs take time to develop while talented rookie RBs can dominate in year 1. Yet they still insist on checking in to see if we've changed our mind yet. Unless I'm wrong neither Mahomes nor Goff even played in their rookie year. Maybe we should give it a little time and let it all play out. I agree with what your saying about why these threads keep popping up, but I like that you mentioned Goff & Mahomes. Both those teams did it the right way. They didn't draft those guys and build their teams around them...which is exactly what wanting the Giants to draft a QB was asking for. Both those franchises had been building those teams, then added Goff or Mahomes. Many people have also mentioned the Rams as one of the teams that "did it right" in that they added key pieces first (like Gurley and Donald) before adding the QB, like it was all part of their master plan and a blueprint that should be followed. But the Rams weren't piking at the top of the draft when they selected Gurley and Donald. When they had the chance to pick in the top spot they took the QB, Goff. Does anyone really think that if the Rams WERE picking at 1 or 2 in the years Gurley and Donald were selected that the Rams would have passed on the QB, when top-rated QBs were available? I don't. And if the Rams finished with a slightly better record the year they selected Goff and they were a talented team with no QB, would anyone be pointing to them as the team that was smart for waiting to draft their QB? The Giants may not be as lucky as the Rams. And if they try to follow that blueprint and fail to land a QB (when they could have had one last year) then we could be in for our very own Barry Sanders experience.

Ok and flip it around, if they got Goff and never got Gurley or Donald they'd be a middle of the pack team. Goff isn't turning chicken shit into chicken salad.

In comment 14216512 Jim in Tampa said:

Quote:

In comment 14216495 Motley Two said: Quote: In comment 14216486 Jim in Tampa said: Quote: But I've already seen this same thread three times now. These similar threads were ALL started by posters who wanted the Giants to draft Barkley. So it gives the impression that what the thread starters are really asking is... "Are any of you dumb asses that wanted to draft a QB over Barkley now willing to admit that you were wrong?" All three thread starters know that talented rookie QBs take time to develop while talented rookie RBs can dominate in year 1. Yet they still insist on checking in to see if we've changed our mind yet. Unless I'm wrong neither Mahomes nor Goff even played in their rookie year. Maybe we should give it a little time and let it all play out. I agree with what your saying about why these threads keep popping up, but I like that you mentioned Goff & Mahomes. Both those teams did it the right way. They didn't draft those guys and build their teams around them...which is exactly what wanting the Giants to draft a QB was asking for. Both those franchises had been building those teams, then added Goff or Mahomes. Many people have also mentioned the Rams as one of the teams that "did it right" in that they added key pieces first (like Gurley and Donald) before adding the QB, like it was all part of their master plan and a blueprint that should be followed. But the Rams weren't piking at the top of the draft when they selected Gurley and Donald. When they had the chance to pick in the top spot they took the QB, Goff. Does anyone really think that if the Rams WERE picking at 1 or 2 in the years Gurley and Donald were selected that the Rams would have passed on the QB, when top-rated QBs were available? I don't. And if the Rams finished with a slightly better record the year they selected Goff and they were a talented team with no QB, would anyone be pointing to them as the team that was smart for waiting to draft their QB? The Giants may not be as lucky as the Rams. And if they try to follow that blueprint and fail to land a QB (when they could have had one last year) then we could be in for our very own Barry Sanders experience.

It's not about waiting for a QB, it's being ready for a QB.
Those teams were ready, more ready than most teams that have taken QBs on recent years.

As much talent as those guys bring, there's a lot of other reasons why they're having early success in their careers.

In comment 14216249 Marty in Albany said:

Quote:

had very few draft picks and desperately needed players we could put on the field this season--O-linemen and DBs. As for Barkley: BPA all the way! Always loved the pick.

So BPA all the way in round one but not round four? The Giants have a 37-year old starting QB and a 2nd round grade on a QB available to them in round four, but you think they should've passed on Lauletta?

p.s.--One of the ballsiest moves of all times was when the Skins drafted Cousins with their 4th round pick despite having just given up a ton of picks so they could take RG3 three rounds earlier. It's just what you do when you see a QB you believe you can win with still available when you're on the clock in round 4. If you add in the fact that your current starter is 37-years old, it becomes a no-brainer.

Skins did the same thing the year they drafted Shuler. Took Frerrotte a few rounds later...

I thought the Skins were stupid for "wasting" a 4th round pick on Cousins once they got RG3.

that we will never be a consistent winner again until we find our next QB and get Eli out of there. And the only way that is going to happen is we ultimately take some chances at QBs.

With that said, my choice would have been Rosen or trade out of that spot and accumulate more draft collateral.

But like you all, I don't shit about whether a college QB will be good or not in the NFL...

Was advertised as great as he is even better then that I am now glad that we selected him over a quarterback. That being said, I believe Darnold and Rosen will both be very good when they get more experience and their teams improve.

In comment 14216643 Jimmy Googs said:

Quote:

that we will never be a consistent winner again until we find our next QB and get Eli out of there. And the only way that is going to happen is we ultimately take some chances at QBs. With that said, my choice would have been Rosen or trade out of that spot and accumulate more draft collateral. But like you all, I don't shit about whether a college QB will be good or not in the NFL...

DG said the trade down offers were not good enough. I have no reason to not believe him.

with that #2 pick, not DG.

What has changed is my perspective on the 2019 Draft. Early on,when we were in the top 3,focusing on the draft & not the season was most important. Now that we have the slightest glimmer of playoffs,the draft has taken a back seat as, in all probability,we'll draft in the 10-15 range.Will the value at the spot we wind up be worth taking a QB if Haskins & possibly,Herbert are already gone? Probably not,so we'd be looking at either a 2nd or 4th round pick of a QB unless DG makes a trade up in the first because he has belief in a certain QB. So,looking at it in today's view, I'd say Eli is QB next year & we will draft a QB but probably not until the 4th round or later. If that is so,Taylor Cornelius would be my choice as he has a lot of upside & a year under Eli would help his development!

In comment 14216720 TheMick7 said:

Quote:

Will the value at the spot we wind up be worth taking a QB if Haskins & possibly,Herbert are already gone? Probably not,so we'd be looking at either a 2nd or 4th round pick of a QB unless DG makes a trade up in the first because he has belief in a certain QB.

Opinions are going to be all over the place about this year's crop of QB prospects. You have Haskins and Herbert as your top two, I like Lock and Grier better than both of them. At least right now I do, it could change. And if Daniel Jones enters the draft, he'll be in the mix as well. It's possible the Giants could have the 15th pick and still get their top rated QB.

Those aren�t mutually exclusive positions. And I thought then and now that Eli has enough left in the tank to be successful. But they still need to secure the future at QB. If it isn�t this year then they will need to extend Eli. I�m ok with that or drafting a QB.

people do not know the difference.

The ONLY purpose of the thread was simply about curiosity over HOW MANY people who wanted a Qb only, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have changed their minds and made a complete 180.

This is NOT an I told you thread at all, even if you try to make it one.

So for the last time, who has made a complete 180 over their 100% conviction that a QB needed to be taken and held that belief until the season got underway?

I'm that guy.
I think I'm the only one though.

wanted a qb strongly over a back but did not think about it in absolutes and liked the barkley pick once it was made.

is not some told you so type for those who know him here so don�t get the stance.

In comment 14216078 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 14215920 Thegratefulhead said: Quote: I was completely in the camp of draft a QB. I wanted Mayfield or Rosen. Mayfield looks good, he wasn't available. Rosen, we need to see more to know. Twist my arm, make me choose, I like Barkley...A lot. He is good enough to build an offense around, even with today's rules that favor passing. Do it, build a physical, knock people off the ball OL and get the fuck out of this kid's way. His intangibles are as impressive as his physical ones. He is as good as I have ever seen. I remember watching the rookie season of the Tyler Rose thinking I was seeing something special. I have not seen anything like it until this year. Earl just looked dominant, like he was on another level from everyone else. Saquon is better, give him the ball more. I get why you think SB is that special, But that's really tough to do - build an offense primarily around the RB. The rules just dictate too much in the other direction where you should pass to win. SB is dynamic; he's got a high entertainment value. But teams will figure out a way to limit his success and force Giants to win in the air. It's just the math of the league...

Our roster was terrible. The thing that would have truly doomed us was to miss on that first pick. We did not miss. We hit the bullseye. I still want a QB of the future. I know Eli is nothing more than a game manager now. I am well aware of his Air Yards, QBR, deep ball accuracy and DVOA on throws without pressure. However, I think he is better than Peyton was when he won the SB with Denver. I am not suggesting we sign Eli to an extension. I am saying building a team that is threat to run when defenses are built to stop the pass can work. It will work because Barkley is a 3 down back. The other thing you must have to make the running back the centerpiece of the offense is the ability for the running back to make big plays...Ummm he is already the best big play back in the league right now. If Luck or his like had been in this draft, yeah, it would have been a mistake. We just drafted a combination Marshall Faulk and Earl Campbell that will be better than both.

In comment 14216794 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

people do not know the difference. The ONLY purpose of the thread was simply about curiosity over HOW MANY people who wanted a Qb only, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, have changed their minds and made a complete 180. This is NOT an I told you thread at all, even if you try to make it one. So for the last time, who has made a complete 180 over their 100% conviction that a QB needed to be taken and held that belief until the season got underway?

I already answered clearly, in case you missed...Me, 180%. There is a caveat. They have to use him. Build it around him and run it through him.

In comment 14215514 micky said:

Quote:

And likely out of reach 2020 draft (Tua, Fromms, etc) Have build around Barkley..both lines first then back 7 of D afterwards. Extend Eli..best theyre going to do at the position for awhile or some time yet

personally I would be afraid to extend Eli for the simple reason he has habit of looking OK for a game or 2 and then he shits his pants all over again, 38 years old its time to maven and stop expecting miracles to happen with Eli, he's inconsistent so get over it...