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.
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...