that are consistently great are the ones who have a franchise QB. That hasnt changed at all.
Well besides New England, who is consistent? Pittsburgh? New Orleans? Does Wilson count because he doesn't fit the mold. San Diego/LA - not consistent, though. Atlanta?
Who is a franchise QB today? Mahomes? Goff? One year wonders.
I'm not sure there are franchise QBs anymore.
Russell Wilson isn’t a franchise QB? The Seahawks aren’t consistent?
it would have been a bold strategy going Nelson & Hernandez in the first 2 rounds. I think the Giants would have been a better team had they done this & they’d be set at guard for the next ten years.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
RE: I think you can really question not picking Nelson.. Â
it would have been a bold strategy going Nelson & Hernandez in the first 2 rounds. I think the Giants would have been a better team had they done this & they’d be set at guard for the next ten years.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
If they took Nelson, they would not have taken Hernandez. And somebody may have taken him anyway before the Giants got to 34.
it would have been a bold strategy going Nelson & Hernandez in the first 2 rounds. I think the Giants would have been a better team had they done this & they’d be set at guard for the next ten years.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
There's also passing on Chubb. Pairing him with Hill or another young pass rusher would have been a wiser course than what we actually did.
There were three or four possible approaches that would have been better.
RE: RE: I think you can really question not picking Nelson.. Â
it would have been a bold strategy going Nelson & Hernandez in the first 2 rounds. I think the Giants would have been a better team had they done this & they’d be set at guard for the next ten years.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
There's also passing on Chubb. Pairing him with Hill or another young pass rusher would have been a wiser course than what we actually did.
There were three or four possible approaches that would have been better.
I tend to agree. Love Barkley but my conviction was if you don't like a QB then get the hell out of that #2 spot...
it would have been a bold strategy going Nelson & Hernandez in the first 2 rounds. I think the Giants would have been a better team had they done this & they’d be set at guard for the next ten years.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
We can't really hypothesize this way. If we had taken Nelson instead, it would have created a domino effect that changed the way the rest of the draft played out. It would mean Barkley was still on the board, so someone within the next few picks would have passed on whoever they took, taken him instead, and the ripple effect could easily have resulted in Hernandez off the board at our 2nd pick spot.
Dallas spent the 4th overall pick on Elliott and their entire offense runs through him. This can work with Barkley. There are different ways to get to the same place and it can happen in different orders.
The offensive line and pass rush have to be things we go all out on this offseason.
No matter what, NYG had too many holes to effectively fill in one year. The order we fill them is less important than who we fill them with. Try to get the best players rather than focus so much on which holes are being filled first.
I hope this offseason leads to some bolder/tougher decisions Â
The Giants have made one tough decision in the last few years and they backed off it (benching Eli). This franchise is fear based right now since the Manning backlash. It’s time to make tough decisions:
1. Moving on from Eli
2. Consider trading Beckham
3. Let Landon Collins walk
These are all very difficult decisions, none more so than Eli. These are HARD decisions, but it’s a business & the business model has failed. If the Gettleman makes some tough decisions which piss some fans off, that’s a good thing.
You know what would be the easy decisions & consistent with the last 6 years?
1. Keep Eli for another year
2. Keep Beckham
3. Sign Landon Collins to a long term deal
Is “generational”!! Mook and Terps a match made in stupid heaven. People might have wanted to actually listen to Gettleman’s presser. 1. If not for the fact that he saw Barkley as a “generational player” ( he was right) he would not have discounted the QBs. He stated he’s under no delusion about what the team is and what needs to be fixed. Primarily the OL and pass rush. People here act like they needed to draft a QB every rd or the team is an epic fail. Oh and just wave your Harry Potter wand and all the other problems would be fixed.
This team’s drafts sucked for more than half a decade. It will take awhile. The locker room is better, there’s is stability at many positions. They got a keeper in Hernandez for the OL (something Reese was unable to do), there are promising young players on defense. It’s a pretty darn good job for 1 off season. But he didn’t take QB so everything else is worthless- whatever you guys are brutal.
the “business model from before this year is NOT RELEVANT!!! You do know this is a different management team right? You know how that works right? Why do you think DG gutted the roster - only 13 guys remain from 2017. You can add Vernon, Jenkins and maybe Ogletree and Martin to those tough decisions. I’m confident he and Shurmur know what needs to be done with this roster.
the fans consider tough and the ones that actually are tough usually don't match.
And the interpretation is all sorts of fucked up. You can draft the best player in the draft and still have a portion of the fanbase calling it a fireable offense.
The one thing to come to grips with is a lot of the fan base is comprised of fucking imbeciles.
I still don't know what trading Beckham accomplishes aside from creating another major roster hole and adding more dead money to our cap in either 2019 or 2020.
Unless someone is blowing us away with a big time offer, I can't see how it helps the Giants get better. We'd also be selling low on him. He missed the last month of the season and most of last year. If there was ever a "low point" in terms of selling on this player - it would probably be now.
I think you need to consider it. My philosophy on trading Beckham is based on the infrastructure which is still very weak for this team. We already have Barkley who is a dynamic skill position player.
This is a strong defensive line draft, our pass rush is putrid. Getting Beckham for a top 15 pick & netting 2 pass rushers in the first round...is that so bad? It’s about team building. Fixing this mess from the inside-out.
the fans consider tough and the ones that actually are tough usually don't match.
And the interpretation is all sorts of fucked up. You can draft the best player in the draft and still have a portion of the fanbase calling it a fireable offense.
The one thing to come to grips with is a lot of the fan base is comprised of fucking imbeciles.
There is way too much made of good QB play here. The way football is it isn't too hard to find a guy that can play these days. There used to be a dearth of talent at the QB position making it scarce. That's just not the case anymore. Plenty of guys can get it down if you surround the team with talent. The point of the draft is to add the best players you can. Not fit needs. We pick arguably the best player in the draft and people are upset. It's mind boggling.
I think you need to consider it. My philosophy on trading Beckham is based on the infrastructure which is still very weak for this team. We already have Barkley who is a dynamic skill position player.
This is a strong defensive line draft, our pass rush is putrid. Getting Beckham for a top 15 pick & netting 2 pass rushers in the first round...is that so bad? It’s about team building. Fixing this mess from the inside-out.
One first round pick does not cut it. Why would you trade a bonafide NFL star for a question mark/potential.
I think you need to consider it. My philosophy on trading Beckham is based on the infrastructure which is still very weak for this team. We already have Barkley who is a dynamic skill position player.
This is a strong defensive line draft, our pass rush is putrid. Getting Beckham for a top 15 pick & netting 2 pass rushers in the first round...is that so bad? It’s about team building. Fixing this mess from the inside-out.
Right, but then we have a horrendous WR group with no depth. So, where are the replacements coming from? Relying on FA WR's is a risky proposition. I know it worked with Burress way back when (sorta..) but we're most likely going to need to use picks on that position - so it's basically taking out one plug in the dam and using it to fill another hole.
I'm not sure it really gets us any closer.
And this assumes we actually nail the pick(s) we get in return. What if we whiff or the player we draft gets hurt? Then we're SOL.
We aren’t getting multiple firsts. Beckham hasn’t played a full season in 2 years & makes a ton of money. It’s a risky move no doubt, but Gettleman should be trying to build an identity here & Beckham’s an asset.
Let’s go back to his intro presser, what does he want to do?
1. Protect the QB
2. Run the ball
3. Pressure the other QB
Beckham doesn’t factor into any of those 3, yet he is an asset to potentially help 1 or 3. It’s about building a team & building an identity.
With strong lines & a running game, I think we can win without Beckham. Terps made this point previously - Dominick Hixon was the leading WR for the Giants in 2008 - the most dominant regular season NYG team in recent history.
With strong lines & a running game, I think we can win without Beckham. Terps made this point previously - Dominick Hixon was the leading WR for the Giants in 2008 - the most dominant regular season NYG team in recent history.
We had the best rushing offense in football and a top 5 defense. That's how it works with Hixon being the top WR. Burress did play more than half the games that year, too - so Hixon wasn't the WR1 all year.
Further - that team fell apart down the stretch and couldn't win a playoff game at home. We were dreadful. Not sure that's the model to follow here. The Giants teams with the true WR threats (Burress, Toomer, Nicks, Cruz, Manningham) won the Super Bowls and the ones without those guys didn't win any playoff games.
We didn't win in the playoffs with Beckham in 2016, either - but people often forget that the defense completely fell apart as soon as DRC was gone and gave up nearly 40 points. I'm not sure even a perfect day by Beckham catching the football gets us a W that night.
With strong lines & a running game, I think we can win without Beckham. Terps made this point previously - Dominick Hixon was the leading WR for the Giants in 2008 - the most dominant regular season NYG team in recent history.
Holy revisionist history. That offense was awful one Plax went down.
pretty bad to use an example from a season where we were bounced in the first round:
Quote:
arc..
Sean : 6:59 pm : link : reply
With strong lines & a running game, I think we can win without Beckham. Terps made this point previously - Dominick Hixon was the leading WR for the Giants in 2008 - the most dominant regular season NYG team in recent history.
Not to mention that Hixon became the #1 WR by default. It would be like saying the Cowboys are in the playoffs this year with Cole Beasley as their top WR, which statistically is true
may have been the best player in the draft athletically, but there's close to zero percent chance he will be even close to the most valuable over his career.
When it comes time for 2nd contracts, he wont be anywhere near the highest paid.
I think Gettleman is a clown but thats not a fireable offense. Believing this team could compete this year is a fireable offense to me. Extending Eli would be a fireable offense.
Quenton Nelson should win Offensive Rookie of the year. He won't because he didn't put up flashy stats, but he's the best player in that draft in my opinion with Barkley a close 2nd. But neither one will be the most valuable. A couple of the QB's probably will be, Mayfield almost certainly will be.
Barkley's terrific statistical season speaks to the value of running backs to teams in the current era.
He stood on his head basically the entire year, and this team still only won 5 games. 4 of which were against backups. 2 of them 3rd string guys. If Garropolo was healthy Giants don't win that game. If Trubisky was healthy giants dont beat Bears.
They would have beat Redskins probably regardless, but this team was really, really bad.
Which top running back from the last decade has won a Super Bowl?
are also wasting Barkley's prime years. 2 years may not seem like a lot but it's probably 33% of a running backs prime years, and those first 2 years the Giants will have zero chance to compete for a title. Hard to imagine them having a chance to compete for a title the 3rd year either because thats likely to be the year they take a QB. It's not Saquons fault but half of what likely is his prime is going to be wasted.
Barkley is quite a specimen. Unless he sustains a career-altering injury, he's going to be productive for a while.
Adrian Peterson just posted a 1000 yard season at age 33. And he tore his ACL a few years ago. I think we're getting carried away by trying to make it seem like the shelf life of a RB is basically 2-3 years. Barkley will last longer than that.
Elliott already has ~900 carries to his name and he's led the NFL in rush YPG per game in all 3 of his active seasons. That's missing 8 games due to suspension/injury/sitting out. 381 touches - the most in football. 2001 scrimmage yards.
I fucking hate Dallas, but Elliott is going to be doing this for a while and so will Barkley.
so when Barkley is 25-26..... which would be his 5th and 6th year in the league, we wont be able to comitt and he will be past his prime?
Shit, Rams better win it this year cause Gurley will be 25 next year and he will be done...
No one said he will be done at 26. But most likely his prime years will be behind him. It's like you guys haven't watched running backs. Ladanian Tomlinson was not immune from his production dropping significantly all of a sudden.
The Steelers let Bell sit out an entire season at age 26. Surely if his prime wasn't close to over they never would have held a hard line on him, right?
But yeah, outlandish to say Barkley's prime is his first 6 years.
Which running back recently had a prime a decade long? Tomlinsons production nose dived after his 7th season and he retired after his 11th year.
It's a good bet Barkley's prime is no longer than Tomlinsons was. Hell i'd sign right now for 7 prime years of Barkley. We've seen running backs fall off of a cliff even earlier then that
But yeah, outlandish to say Barkley's prime is his first 6 years.
Which running back recently had a prime a decade long? Tomlinsons production nose dived after his 7th season and he retired after his 11th year.
It's a good bet Barkley's prime is no longer than Tomlinsons was. Hell i'd sign right now for 7 prime years of Barkley. We've seen running backs fall off of a cliff even earlier then that
How many non QBs and lineman have more than 7 prime years though? Does that mean you should never take a non QB or lineman in the first round? I would have been happy with Chubb, but it's not out of the question we have a new QB in place and we're ready to contend while Barkley is still a good player, not discounting the fact that he might be instrumental in easing our next QB into the NFL.
But yeah, outlandish to say Barkley's prime is his first 6 years.
Which running back recently had a prime a decade long? Tomlinsons production nose dived after his 7th season and he retired after his 11th year.
It's a good bet Barkley's prime is no longer than Tomlinsons was. Hell i'd sign right now for 7 prime years of Barkley. We've seen running backs fall off of a cliff even earlier then that
So, we’re just casually glossing over the part where Tomlinson’s decline was a result of getting hurt several times?
He sprained his MCL, hurt his big toe, hurt his ankle, partially tore his groin... I’m guessing that stuff had something to do with the dip.
Tomlinson actually had a pretty good year with the Jets, too.
Barkley is a better athlete. It’s certainly not out of the question he’ll get hurt, but unless we’re banking on it, I’m not sure LdT is a great comp here.
Quote:
that are consistently great are the ones who have a franchise QB. That hasnt changed at all.
Well besides New England, who is consistent? Pittsburgh? New Orleans? Does Wilson count because he doesn't fit the mold. San Diego/LA - not consistent, though. Atlanta?
Who is a franchise QB today? Mahomes? Goff? One year wonders.
I'm not sure there are franchise QBs anymore.
Russell Wilson isn’t a franchise QB? The Seahawks aren’t consistent?
I'll wait.
The QB's of the 4 teams with byes this year are Brady, Mahomes, Brees, and Goff.
All franchise level QBs.
Are we watching the same sport? Tom Brady is in the AFC title game seemingly every year. Drew Brees is torching the league at his age.
And you don't think there are franchise QBs anymore? Really?
You named two. Keep going. Wilson, does he fit the mold?
Bortles
Mariota
Foles
Brady
3 of them are NOT franchise QBs.
Quote:
:-)
I knew I could make you laugh!
I laugh all the time on this site...its easy
The Jaguars didn't have that and fell off of a cliff this year. Tennessee ditto. Eagles were 9-7.
The teams that are consistently competing for titles are the ones that have franchise QB's.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
If they took Nelson, they would not have taken Hernandez. And somebody may have taken him anyway before the Giants got to 34.
So what the hell was your point chucklehead?
That extra loss was on eli
The Jaguars didn't have that and fell off of a cliff this year. Tennessee ditto. Eagles were 9-7.
The teams that are consistently competing for titles are the ones that have franchise QB's.
Yet, they sucked until the non-franchise Super Bowl MVP backup took over.
Like it or not Mariota, Winston, Smith, Rivers, Eli, Luck are also "franchise" QBs - all 1st round QBs.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
There's also passing on Chubb. Pairing him with Hill or another young pass rusher would have been a wiser course than what we actually did.
There were three or four possible approaches that would have been better.
Quote:
it would have been a bold strategy going Nelson & Hernandez in the first 2 rounds. I think the Giants would have been a better team had they done this & they’d be set at guard for the next ten years.
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
There's also passing on Chubb. Pairing him with Hill or another young pass rusher would have been a wiser course than what we actually did.
There were three or four possible approaches that would have been better.
I tend to agree. Love Barkley but my conviction was if you don't like a QB then get the hell out of that #2 spot...
I think this also aligns more with keeping Eli which was the plan.
Regardless, Barkley is a great talent & they need to figure out a way to win with him. This team has been “years away” since 2013. Enough is enough.
We can't really hypothesize this way. If we had taken Nelson instead, it would have created a domino effect that changed the way the rest of the draft played out. It would mean Barkley was still on the board, so someone within the next few picks would have passed on whoever they took, taken him instead, and the ripple effect could easily have resulted in Hernandez off the board at our 2nd pick spot.
Dallas spent the 4th overall pick on Elliott and their entire offense runs through him. This can work with Barkley. There are different ways to get to the same place and it can happen in different orders.
The offensive line and pass rush have to be things we go all out on this offseason.
No matter what, NYG had too many holes to effectively fill in one year. The order we fill them is less important than who we fill them with. Try to get the best players rather than focus so much on which holes are being filled first.
1. Moving on from Eli
2. Consider trading Beckham
3. Let Landon Collins walk
These are all very difficult decisions, none more so than Eli. These are HARD decisions, but it’s a business & the business model has failed. If the Gettleman makes some tough decisions which piss some fans off, that’s a good thing.
You know what would be the easy decisions & consistent with the last 6 years?
1. Keep Eli for another year
2. Keep Beckham
3. Sign Landon Collins to a long term deal
Unfortunately, I think the latter is more likely.
This team’s drafts sucked for more than half a decade. It will take awhile. The locker room is better, there’s is stability at many positions. They got a keeper in Hernandez for the OL (something Reese was unable to do), there are promising young players on defense. It’s a pretty darn good job for 1 off season. But he didn’t take QB so everything else is worthless- whatever you guys are brutal.
Or why a team that desperately needs to improve on offense would trade one of their two offensive skill players that are above league average
And the interpretation is all sorts of fucked up. You can draft the best player in the draft and still have a portion of the fanbase calling it a fireable offense.
The one thing to come to grips with is a lot of the fan base is comprised of fucking imbeciles.
Unless someone is blowing us away with a big time offer, I can't see how it helps the Giants get better. We'd also be selling low on him. He missed the last month of the season and most of last year. If there was ever a "low point" in terms of selling on this player - it would probably be now.
Quote:
you trade Beckham 6 months after signing him. Just not a wise business decision unless you get 2 1st rounders.
Or why a team that desperately needs to improve on offense would trade one of their two offensive skill players that are above league average
Apparently the baby needs to go out with the bath water...get rid of everyone.
This is a strong defensive line draft, our pass rush is putrid. Getting Beckham for a top 15 pick & netting 2 pass rushers in the first round...is that so bad? It’s about team building. Fixing this mess from the inside-out.
And the interpretation is all sorts of fucked up. You can draft the best player in the draft and still have a portion of the fanbase calling it a fireable offense.
The one thing to come to grips with is a lot of the fan base is comprised of fucking imbeciles.
There is way too much made of good QB play here. The way football is it isn't too hard to find a guy that can play these days. There used to be a dearth of talent at the QB position making it scarce. That's just not the case anymore. Plenty of guys can get it down if you surround the team with talent. The point of the draft is to add the best players you can. Not fit needs. We pick arguably the best player in the draft and people are upset. It's mind boggling.
This is a strong defensive line draft, our pass rush is putrid. Getting Beckham for a top 15 pick & netting 2 pass rushers in the first round...is that so bad? It’s about team building. Fixing this mess from the inside-out.
One first round pick does not cut it. Why would you trade a bonafide NFL star for a question mark/potential.
This is a strong defensive line draft, our pass rush is putrid. Getting Beckham for a top 15 pick & netting 2 pass rushers in the first round...is that so bad? It’s about team building. Fixing this mess from the inside-out.
Right, but then we have a horrendous WR group with no depth. So, where are the replacements coming from? Relying on FA WR's is a risky proposition. I know it worked with Burress way back when (sorta..) but we're most likely going to need to use picks on that position - so it's basically taking out one plug in the dam and using it to fill another hole.
I'm not sure it really gets us any closer.
And this assumes we actually nail the pick(s) we get in return. What if we whiff or the player we draft gets hurt? Then we're SOL.
Let’s go back to his intro presser, what does he want to do?
1. Protect the QB
2. Run the ball
3. Pressure the other QB
Beckham doesn’t factor into any of those 3, yet he is an asset to potentially help 1 or 3. It’s about building a team & building an identity.
We had the best rushing offense in football and a top 5 defense. That's how it works with Hixon being the top WR. Burress did play more than half the games that year, too - so Hixon wasn't the WR1 all year.
Further - that team fell apart down the stretch and couldn't win a playoff game at home. We were dreadful. Not sure that's the model to follow here. The Giants teams with the true WR threats (Burress, Toomer, Nicks, Cruz, Manningham) won the Super Bowls and the ones without those guys didn't win any playoff games.
We didn't win in the playoffs with Beckham in 2016, either - but people often forget that the defense completely fell apart as soon as DRC was gone and gave up nearly 40 points. I'm not sure even a perfect day by Beckham catching the football gets us a W that night.
Holy revisionist history. That offense was awful one Plax went down.
We'll see who has the most team beneficial career of the two. If Barkley has Tomlinson-like productivity and longevity then it's a good pick.
Taking the wrong QB at #2 would have come with a high opportunity cost given the QBs coming out in 2020 and 2021.
Sean : 6:59 pm : link : reply
With strong lines & a running game, I think we can win without Beckham. Terps made this point previously - Dominick Hixon was the leading WR for the Giants in 2008 - the most dominant regular season NYG team in recent history.
Not to mention that Hixon became the #1 WR by default. It would be like saying the Cowboys are in the playoffs this year with Cole Beasley as their top WR, which statistically is true
When it comes time for 2nd contracts, he wont be anywhere near the highest paid.
I think Gettleman is a clown but thats not a fireable offense. Believing this team could compete this year is a fireable offense to me. Extending Eli would be a fireable offense.
Quenton Nelson should win Offensive Rookie of the year. He won't because he didn't put up flashy stats, but he's the best player in that draft in my opinion with Barkley a close 2nd. But neither one will be the most valuable. A couple of the QB's probably will be, Mayfield almost certainly will be.
He stood on his head basically the entire year, and this team still only won 5 games. 4 of which were against backups. 2 of them 3rd string guys. If Garropolo was healthy Giants don't win that game. If Trubisky was healthy giants dont beat Bears.
They would have beat Redskins probably regardless, but this team was really, really bad.
Which top running back from the last decade has won a Super Bowl?
Shit, Rams better win it this year cause Gurley will be 25 next year and he will be done...
Adrian Peterson just posted a 1000 yard season at age 33. And he tore his ACL a few years ago. I think we're getting carried away by trying to make it seem like the shelf life of a RB is basically 2-3 years. Barkley will last longer than that.
Elliott already has ~900 carries to his name and he's led the NFL in rush YPG per game in all 3 of his active seasons. That's missing 8 games due to suspension/injury/sitting out. 381 touches - the most in football. 2001 scrimmage yards.
I fucking hate Dallas, but Elliott is going to be doing this for a while and so will Barkley.
Shit, Rams better win it this year cause Gurley will be 25 next year and he will be done...
No one said he will be done at 26. But most likely his prime years will be behind him. It's like you guys haven't watched running backs. Ladanian Tomlinson was not immune from his production dropping significantly all of a sudden.
The Steelers let Bell sit out an entire season at age 26. Surely if his prime wasn't close to over they never would have held a hard line on him, right?
But yeah, outlandish to say Barkley's prime is his first 6 years.
Which running back recently had a prime a decade long? Tomlinsons production nose dived after his 7th season and he retired after his 11th year.
It's a good bet Barkley's prime is no longer than Tomlinsons was. Hell i'd sign right now for 7 prime years of Barkley. We've seen running backs fall off of a cliff even earlier then that
But yeah, outlandish to say Barkley's prime is his first 6 years.
Which running back recently had a prime a decade long? Tomlinsons production nose dived after his 7th season and he retired after his 11th year.
It's a good bet Barkley's prime is no longer than Tomlinsons was. Hell i'd sign right now for 7 prime years of Barkley. We've seen running backs fall off of a cliff even earlier then that
How many non QBs and lineman have more than 7 prime years though? Does that mean you should never take a non QB or lineman in the first round? I would have been happy with Chubb, but it's not out of the question we have a new QB in place and we're ready to contend while Barkley is still a good player, not discounting the fact that he might be instrumental in easing our next QB into the NFL.
But yeah, outlandish to say Barkley's prime is his first 6 years.
Which running back recently had a prime a decade long? Tomlinsons production nose dived after his 7th season and he retired after his 11th year.
It's a good bet Barkley's prime is no longer than Tomlinsons was. Hell i'd sign right now for 7 prime years of Barkley. We've seen running backs fall off of a cliff even earlier then that
So, we’re just casually glossing over the part where Tomlinson’s decline was a result of getting hurt several times?
He sprained his MCL, hurt his big toe, hurt his ankle, partially tore his groin... I’m guessing that stuff had something to do with the dip.
Tomlinson actually had a pretty good year with the Jets, too.
Barkley is a better athlete. It’s certainly not out of the question he’ll get hurt, but unless we’re banking on it, I’m not sure LdT is a great comp here.
If Barkley has the same career as Tomlinson, people would see that as a negative? The guy is a hall of fame RB...