at 6. I doubt it, but aside from size Murray prolly fits Shurmur to a T.
Of note, this mock has Jags jumping the Giants to nab Haskins at 2, Murray at 6, Jones to Broncos at 10 and Lock at 11 to 'Skins in trade up with Bengals.
Mocks are crazily speculative at this point in time, linked below.
CBS latest mock draft - (
New Window )
Murray is closer to 5'10" than 5'9", according to 2 sources. 5'9.75" to be precise. Russell Wilson is 5'11" according to his Combine measurement.
Wilson ran a 4.55 sec. 40 yard dash. Murray may run a 4.45 40. So far I have seen him passing well from roll outs to his left as well as his right, which will be crucial for him to succeed. I haven't watched enough of him yet, but he may be that 1 in a million guy who just has it, despite his height. He's only 1.25 inches shorter than Wilson. Is that TOO short?
Those highlights... make it look as if Murray plus Barkley, OBJ, Engram and Sterling Shepard would be like playing Madden - with a halfway decent OL.
This is going to happen if he’s there. It’s a no brainer for them. Marketability in dc, need a price controlled QB, and if it works he’s a genius, if not then it’s a cheap qb for a few years.
I mean, would you be shocked if the Giants got say Haskins round 1 and moved back into round 1 late to take a guy that falls, a Lock or whatever, too? I wouldn't be only because as crazy as that sounds if you like 2 guys a whole lot and the roster has spots after Eli, pull the trigger. Or Eli is cut. Or whatever. Draft boards get crazy.
But I'm always for best player available regardless of position. Stay with your board, not with your emotions.
Murray is closer to 5'10" than 5'9", according to 2 sources. 5'9.75" to be precise. Russell Wilson is 5'11" according to his Combine measurement.
. . . He's only 1.25 inches shorter than Wilson. Is that TOO short?
Initial combine measurements get rounded off. Wilson's combine highlight video shows that his precise measurement was actually 5-10 5/8.
That's good for your case. But the other thing the combine video shows is that Wilson came out of college built like a linebacker.
Murray doesn't have that and, while he might put on some weight, he'll never be as solid as Wilson.
RW muscles - ( New Window )
For the millionth time, they passed on Darnold and Rosen because of how good Barkley was. Not because Darnold and Rosen weren't good enough. Plus, Murray was a significantly better college player than Darnold and Rosen. If you're saying they didn't check enough boxes as prospects that's a different argument.
QBs normally always move up the draft board the closer that the draft comes.
Murray played against enormous defenders in college and did it well enough to win the Heisman. I have no doubt he can play quarterback in the NFL.
The issue always ends up being when coaches try to turn these guys into pocket QBs in an effort to keep him healthy. It may keep him healthy longer, but that doesn't matter much if it destroys his game.
Murray played against enormous defenders in college and did it well enough to win the Heisman. I have no doubt he can play quarterback in the NFL.
The issue always ends up being when coaches try to turn these guys into pocket QBs in an effort to keep him healthy. It may keep him healthy longer, but that doesn't matter much if it destroys his game.
Spot on Terps. With Murray's running ability and supposed 4.4n speed, you keep this guy rolling out a high % of his snaps because D's have to respect his running. At the same time he can stop on a dime and sling the darn football all over the place, rolling to either side I think
IMO he's a top 10 pick but I gotta watch more.
In the other mock from BR I posted today, very nice brief write up on Lock and how he'll likely rise up boards like Josh Allen did last year - who went 7 to Buffalo. Big arm and athleticism of the two compared favorably.
Quote:
Rich Gannon was 6'3"...that didn't matter when Tony Siragusa pancaked him and separated his shoulder.
Murray played against enormous defenders in college and did it well enough to win the Heisman. I have no doubt he can play quarterback in the NFL.
The issue always ends up being when coaches try to turn these guys into pocket QBs in an effort to keep him healthy. It may keep him healthy longer, but that doesn't matter much if it destroys his game.
Spot on Terps. With Murray's running ability and supposed 4.4n speed, you keep this guy rolling out a high % of his snaps because D's have to respect his running. At the same time he can stop on a dime and sling the darn football all over the place, rolling to either side I think
IMO he's a top 10 pick but I gotta watch more.
In the other mock from BR I posted today, very nice brief write up on Lock and how he'll likely rise up boards like Josh Allen did last year - who went 7 to Buffalo. Big arm and athleticism of the two compared favorably.
He looks like one hell of a football player to me. He may not match the measurables, not even close, but he looks like a game changer.
Quote:
Rich Gannon was 6'3"...that didn't matter when Tony Siragusa pancaked him and separated his shoulder.
Murray played against enormous defenders in college and did it well enough to win the Heisman. I have no doubt he can play quarterback in the NFL.
The issue always ends up being when coaches try to turn these guys into pocket QBs in an effort to keep him healthy. It may keep him healthy longer, but that doesn't matter much if it destroys his game.
Spot on Terps. With Murray's running ability and supposed 4.4n speed, you keep this guy rolling out a high % of his snaps because D's have to respect his running. At the same time he can stop on a dime and sling the darn football all over the place, rolling to either side I think
IMO he's a top 10 pick but I gotta watch more.
In the other mock from BR I posted today, very nice brief write up on Lock and how he'll likely rise up boards like Josh Allen did last year - who went 7 to Buffalo. Big arm and athleticism of the two compared favorably.
Allen was really underwhelming. I think the most impressive part of his rookie year was actually how well he did running with the football. But that's not why he was drafted.
His completion % is still dreadful - to be completing just half your passes in a league where 40 year olds are @ 70% is bad. He got picked off more than he threw the ball into the endzone.
We'd be in a world of trouble right now if we took this guy rather than Barkley.... Josh Allen is the type of guy that gets you into "QB hell" because now Buffalo will spend more than half this rookie contract trying to get him "right" and have him put his tools together - odds are he won't, and then they'll go back and forth wondering when to cut the cord because of the investment and will be hesitant to move on from him.
I know I'm getting way ahead of myself and that his career arc could change on a dime - but I just don't see it with Allen.
I do think Darnold will be good. I think Rosen was in a near-impossible situation with a first year coach and terrible team around him, but the talent is there.
But really, after year 1, I think the only guy I'd have considered a "mistake" to pass on would have been Mayfield. And we didn't pass on him.
There's no "RB hell" - we're never going to get stuck in a phase of roster building because of Saquon Barkley. But a team like Buffalo most certainly can with Allen if he's middling and no one can decide if he's worth continuing along with or moving on from.
It's basically the Dolphins with Tannehill. He's one of those guys who fools teams into sticking with them because they're too afraid of the alternative unknown - so, they waste money on a second contract and keep spinning their wheels with a QB who really isn't very good.
Barkley is a top 3 player at his position. Allen is close to the bottom of his.
Point being, for all his talent he was poorly deployed and he didn't impact games. He's a special player that made some special plays, but most of the work he did last year - particularly as a receiver - could have been done by anybody.
That ain't on him...it's on the coaching staff that wasted him in year 1.
And I don't really care about Josh Allen's completion percentage. With him as a starter the Bills went 5-6. In the remainder of their games they went 1-4. He made a difference.
Also, Barkley didn't impact games? Am I missing something?
Point being, for all his talent he was poorly deployed and he didn't impact games. He's a special player that made some special plays, but most of the work he did last year - particularly as a receiver - could have been done by anybody.
That ain't on him...it's on the coaching staff that wasted him in year 1.
And I don't really care about Josh Allen's completion percentage. With him as a starter the Bills went 5-6. In the remainder of their games they went 1-4. He made a difference.
I stopped reading when you said Barkley "didn't impact games"
I like to think you know your stuff - but comments like that really make me wonder.
You crush the Giants for everything, refuse to say that the post bye play was an improvement here despite the difference in record, but readily give Josh Allen credit for a losing record just because the backup options were horrid and impossible to win games with while he was out.
They were still a losing football team WITH him, and if completing just 52% of passes in a year where completion percentages were up across the board and saw several QB's approach 70%, that is a HUGE red flag.
Allen was not good this year and the Giants would have been worse football team if they drafted him.
What the heck am I reading here?
The go-to move seems to be to constantly assign assessment to individual players using their team records.
I shouldn't have to explain why that is a really poor method of evaluation again, but maybe I do - because it keeps being used as a way to prop up shitty non-Giants and knock down anyone who IS a Giant. Including incredibly talented players like Barkley and Beckham.
Point being, for all his talent he was poorly deployed and he didn't impact games. He's a special player that made some special plays, but most of the work he did last year - particularly as a receiver - could have been done by anybody.
That ain't on him...it's on the coaching staff that wasted him in year 1.
And I don't really care about Josh Allen's completion percentage. With him as a starter the Bills went 5-6. In the remainder of their games they went 1-4. He made a difference.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.
Point being, for all his talent he was poorly deployed and he didn't impact games. He's a special player that made some special plays, but most of the work he did last year - particularly as a receiver - could have been done by anybody.
That ain't on him...it's on the coaching staff that wasted him in year 1.
And I don't really care about Josh Allen's completion percentage. With him as a starter the Bills went 5-6. In the remainder of their games they went 1-4. He made a difference.
Holy cow. Talk about cherry picking stats to fit a narrative. One of those losses was the game Allen got hurt for one. Two, the losses were against NE, Indy, Houston and Chicago — all playoff teams. Allen didn’t win a single game against a playoff team.
The reason for your Barkley stat is that the Giants were already losing and playing catch up which meant lots of dumpoffs. Sure, they didn’t utilize him well in the passing game but all else being equal, you’d win a lot more games with Barkley and a crappy QB than Allen with a crappy RB. Buffalo won one more game than we did and that’s with their elite defense and with 4 games against the Jets and Dolphins.
No one is knocking Barkley. My point is that with him on our offense getting all those yards we still struggled to score points and win games. The way he was used limited his effectiveness.
You said above that the Bills might be in trouble with Allen. If that's true, it's also true about us despite Barkley's presence.
The point is, what difference did he make? He made some incredible plays and put up 2000 yards, and the offense still sucked. What does that tell you?
No one is knocking Barkley. My point is that with him on our offense getting all those yards we still struggled to score points and win games. The way he was used limited his effectiveness.
You said above that the Bills might be in trouble with Allen. If that's true, it's also true about us despite Barkley's presence.
It's not - because the Giants are never going to be held hostage by a RB the way teams get stuck with QB's. Hell, most teams use 2 and 3 RB's simultaneously. You don't marry yourself to one individual player there - but you do at the QB position - which is why there's a big difference.
Barkley will never throw a wrench in the Giants plans the way middling QB's do.
Of course the record is the most important part, but can't use this logic you keep using where you say "player x was on a team with a bad record, therefore player x is not a good investment" - you'll never wind up with a good football team if your criteria for a worthwhile football player is only one who plays on teams with good W/L records.
It is a bad way to evaluate players. Barkley had tons of impact. But when you're adding good players to a really bad team, they aren't going to push the needle far enough on their own.
We need MORE Barkleys and MORE Beckham's. Talent is the biggest problem here - we don't have enough. Barkley was awesome. He can be part of the solution. But we won't get better until we do more to fix the lines, do more to get to opposing QB's, and figure out our own QB future.
No one is knocking Barkley. My point is that with him on our offense getting all those yards we still struggled to score points and win games. The way he was used limited his effectiveness.
You said above that the Bills might be in trouble with Allen. If that's true, it's also true about us despite Barkley's presence.
Barkley is a component, you add components to make a unit. Barkley even as great as he was past year is only a single component. The wins will happen once they get other components (coaching is another component). The giants have missed on high draft picks so they are behind. You are putting way too much responsibility on Barkley, an individual for a team game
You're taking my post too literally - the point is that NYG need more talent. We won't get better by passing on players like Barkley in the draft because he's a running back or by narrowing our criteria to only players that we think can somehow win us games singlehandedly.
Like I said in my above post - we need more offensive line help, we need to be able to rush the passer, we need more DB depth, and depth in general.
I don't actually expect twenty two #26's and #13's - but I also don't expect the Giants to be a better football team until they fill out their roster with better football players.
And to be fair, Buffalo is not an elite team on the offensive side of the ball - anywhere. They need a infusion of talent before we can really assess Allen as a thrower. I think of us agree this is the same sentiment for Rosen, too.
Component is a good word to use. Barkley is one - a large one. But we're still missing pieces and until we have those pieces, the overall unit won't be good enough.
But Barkley gets us closer. Which is why you make that investment even if he doesn't get us all the way.
I'm also pretty sure that more top flight talent would only help NYG - not hurt them. Doesn't mean I expect that or think it's an actual model to follow - but there's certainly nothing BAD about adding elite talent to a football team.
And to be fair, Buffalo is not an elite team on the offensive side of the ball - anywhere. They need a infusion of talent before we can really assess Allen as a thrower. I think of us agree this is the same sentiment for Rosen, too.
The cardinals actually have some nice skill players. Their offensive line is putrid though. Hard to judge a pure pocket passer on that. Although I would have hoped he put up better numbers than he did.